MINIMUM STANDARDS
FOR CAMP MANAGEMENT
FIELD TESTING EDITION
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
1
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CAMP MANAGEMENT
Contents
About the Minimum Standards for Camp Management................................................................................ 3
Who are the Minimum Standards for Camp Management aimed at?....................................................... 3
The structure of the standards ................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 8
What is site management? ......................................................................................................................... 8
Why is site management needed? ............................................................................................................. 8
Where do these standards apply? .............................................................................................................. 9
Humanitarian Charter, humanitarian principles and Protection Principles ............................................. 11
Camps as a last resort ............................................................................................................................... 12
Provider of last resort ............................................................................................................................... 13
1. Site management policies and capacities ................................................................................................. 14
2. Community participation and representation .......................................................................................... 22
3. Site environment ...................................................................................................................................... 31
4. Site service coordination and monitoring ................................................................................................ 37
5. Exit and transition ..................................................................................................................................... 43
References and further reading ................................................................................................................... 49
Annex 1 – Inclusivity checklist ...................................................................................................................... 52
Site management capacities and identification ....................................................................................... 52
Participation and representation ............................................................................................................. 53
Site environment ...................................................................................................................................... 54
Site service coordination and monitoring ................................................................................................ 55
Exit and transition..................................................................................................................................... 56
Index ................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 57
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
2
About the Minimum Standards for Camp Management
In a humanitarian crisis, camps and camp‐like settings are often the only places where internally displaced
persons (IDPs) and refugees can seek protection and assistance.
These Minimum Standards for Camp Management describe the minimum actions needed to support
meaningful engagement within a site as well as planning and coordination between sectors and agencies.
They aim to clarify the role of any site management agency working on a daily basis in humanitarian
settings and to set out minimum levels of quality of that work. Although called the Minimum Standards for
Camp Management, the standards apply to all contexts where displaced people seek shelter, protection
and other support, and the term “site” is used unless a specific camp context is meant.
The standards are based on the fundamental belief that the rights of all displaced persons must be
respected and their needs met in a way that supports their dignity.
The need for a set of standards to measure the quality of work done by an SMA is long overdue. In 2002,
key SMAs and field practitioners acknowledged the lack of agreement on common standards and policies
and the proven inadequate levels of assistance and protection. They recognised the need for shared
guidelines and tools in camp management, resulting in the 2004 Camp Management Toolkit. Today, the
toolkit is a well‐recognised reference of comprehensive knowledge and lessons learned related to site
management. Other guides and handbooks followed, notably the 2010 UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR)
Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons. More recent demand from field practitioners,
together with the main aims of global clusters to develop effective common policy frameworks, led to the
Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) Cluster starting a project in 2016 to establish minimum
sectoral standards.
The resulting Minimum Standards for Camp Management are the outcome of wide consultation in the
field, online surveys, focus group discussions, desk reviews and expert advice. Displaced people, leading
operational partners and government counterparts were all actively consulted to input to the standards.
Recognising that camps and other displacement settings are part of a larger ecosystem of humanitarian
response, the Standards refer to existing guidance documents both in the CCCM technical sector, like the
Camp Management Toolkit and the Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons and core
Humanitarian Standards Partnership resources, including The Sphere Handbook. In doing so, they guide
people working in displacement settings in what to expect from CCCM professionals and support site
managers who may be new to the sector.
Who are the Minimum Standards for Camp Management aimed at?
The primary target audience for these standards is site managers and their teams, that is, staff who work
in displacement sites on a daily basis.
They are also intended for use by others working with displaced people in the places where they live. This
includes those working directly and daily with displaced people, planners and policymakers, technical
specialists, coordinators, donors, academics and those working on advocacy, media or communications.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
3
Different organisational approaches to site management may be needed to realise these minimum
standards, depending on context. Recognising this, these standards use the generic term “site
management agency” (SMA) to refer to the full range of different site team structures. These include:



the traditional camp management agency, which organises the governance structures of displaced
communities and coordinates the assistance and services provided by humanitarian or other
organisations (such as private entities and local authorities);
the mobile camp management agency, which relies on adapting CCCM responses to scattered,
numerous and less structured sites where the permanent presence of a camp management agency
is not feasible or desirable. The agency works closely with the displaced persons living in these sites
to organise a multi‐sectoral response to their needs. It focuses mainly on managing and
coordinating communal sites of different sizes and dispersed locations, making sure site residents
participate in managing the response. If needed, it can also target broader populations living in any
given area to ensure an area‐based coordinated response; and
site management support, which is provided to a national, state or designated government
counterpart or appointed local organisation, where additional support is needed. The site
management support team provides support to strengthen the capacities of the appointed site
management so they can deliver on their roles and responsibilities. This can include supporting,
for example, in day‐to‐day coordination and monitoring of assistance and service provision;
training and skills building, including by providing appropriate tools; and with relevant equipment.
The structure of the standards
The Minimum Standards for Camp Management share a common structure, similar to other humanitarian
standards, to support the reader in understanding the universal statement (the minimum standard),
followed by a series of key actions, key indicators and guidance notes to achieve them.




The minimum standards are derived from the principle of the rights of displaced people. These
are general and qualitative in nature, stating the minimum to be achieved in any crisis.
Key actions outline practical steps to achieve the minimum standard. These are suggestions and
may not apply in all contexts. The practitioner should select the most relevant for the situation.
Key indicators serve as signals to measure whether the standard is being reached. They provide a
way to capture process and programme results against the standard and over the life of the
response. Minimum quantitative requirements are the lowest acceptable level of achievement for
indicators and are only included where there is sectoral consensus.
Guidance notes provide additional information to support the key actions, with cross‐references
to other standards, guidance and tools.
Working with the key indicators
The key indicators are a way to measure whether a standard is being achieved and should not be confused
with the standard itself. The standard is universal, but the key indicators, like the key actions, should be
developed further depending on the context and phase of the response.
There are three types of indicators:
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
4



process indicators check whether a minimum requirement has been achieved;
progress indicators provide the unit of measurement to monitor achieving the standard. They
should be used to set baselines, set targets with partners and stakeholders, and monitor changes
towards that target; and
target indicators are targets which represent the quantifiable minimum below which the standard
is not being met. These should be reached as soon as possible, as falling short will compromise the
overall programme.
The standards use both quantitative and qualitative indicators across all domains. Indicators measuring
qualitative information, such as satisfaction or perception indicators, are included to strengthen
accountability especially to site populations, and to help drive and develop programmatic changes that
SMAs need to make to meet the standards.
Sex and age disaggregated data, at a minimum, allows programme managers and decision‐makers to
examine service delivery, treatment and service outcomes in‐depth. Further disaggregation may be needed
depending on the context.
What is meant by “minimum” and what happens if that cannot be met?
The Minimum Standards for Camp Management are based on the fundamental belief that the rights of all
displaced persons must be respected and their needs met in a way that supports their dignity. In doing
this, these standards are minimum standards and remain constant. However, the key actions and
indicators need to be adapted to be meaningful in the operational setting, and with the input of the site
population, whether displaced or host communities. The context will also change throughout the site
lifecycle, so their appropriateness should be reviewed over time.
SMAs should always strive to exceed these minimums, and to address as many groups and their particular
needs as possible. It cannot be assumed that assistance is a neutral activity which affects everyone equally.
The context and manner in which assistance is delivered impacts on whether the human rights and needs
of affected persons are being respected and fulfilled. A human rights‐based approach, therefore, provides
the framework and necessary standards for humanitarian assistance activities.
In cases where the standards are not met, any proposal to reduce the minimum requirements should be
evaluated carefully. SMAs should lead a process to collectively agree to any reductions and to report the
shortfall in actual progress against the minimums. These should be agreed by displaced people, host
communities, organisations working in the site and other key stakeholders. Humanitarian organisations
must also assess the negative impact on the population when not meeting a standard and take steps to
minimise any harm. SMAs should use this response gap for advocacy and strive to reach the indicators as
soon as possible.
Using the standards in context
Humanitarian responses take place in many different contexts. Several factors will influence how the
standards can be applied in the operating environment to support the right to life with dignity. These
include:
•
the setting in which humanitarian response is being delivered;
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
5
•
•
•
the differences across populations and diversity among people;
the operational and logistical realities that will affect how and what kind of humanitarian response is
delivered; and
the baselines and indicators that are appropriate to the context – with key terms defined and targets
set.
Culture, language, the capacity of responders, security, access, environmental conditions and resources
will influence the response. It is also important to anticipate any potential negative effects of the response
and act to limit these. The Minimum Standards for Camp Management are a voluntary code for quality
and accountability, designed to encourage the broadest possible use and ownership of the standards. They
are not a “how‐to” guide but a description of what must be in place as a minimum for people to recover
and rebuild from a crisis with dignity. Conforming to the standards does not mean implementing all key
actions or meeting all key indicators of all standards. The degree to which an organisation can meet the
standards will depend on a range of factors, some of which are beyond their control. Lack of access to the
affected population, or political or economic insecurity, may make achieving the standards impossible. In
cases where the minimum requirements exceed the living conditions of the host community, SMAs need
to assess how to reduce potential tensions, such as by offering community‐based services. In some
situations, national authorities may establish minimum requirements that are higher than the standards.
Links with other standards
The Minimum Standards for Camp Management do not cover all aspects of humanitarian assistance that
support the right to life with dignity. Partner organisations have developed complementary standards in
several sectors, based on the same philosophy and commitments as this set of standards. These are
available through Sphere, the Humanitarian Standards Partnership and its partner organisations’ own
websites.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
6
Complementary standards to the Minimum Standards for Camp Management
• The Sphere Handbook; Humanitarian Charter and
Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response: Sphere
Association
• Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards: LEGS
Project
• Minimum Standards for Child Protection in
Humanitarian Action (CPMS): Alliance for Child
Protection in Humanitarian Action
• Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness,
Response, Recovery: Inter‐Agency Network for
Education in Emergencies (INEE)
• Minimum Economic Recovery Standards (MERS): Small
Enterprise Education and Promotion (SEEP) Network
• Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MISMA):
Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP)
• Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People
and People with Disabilities: Age and Disability
Consortium
Source: Wan Sophonpanich / IOM 2020
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
7
Introduction
What is site management?
Site management is the coordination and monitoring of service provision, protection and assistance in
locations where people displace to. Applying the legal protection framework and minimum humanitarian
standards through community governance and participatory systems, site management is both technical
and social. It aims to make sure services and protection provided in communal settings are in line with
national and international laws, guidelines and agreed standards, to improve quality of life and dignity
during displacement and to advocate for lasting (“durable”) solutions.
The term “site” is increasingly used in the sector to apply to camps and camp‐like settings including planned
camps, self‐settled camps, collective centres, reception and transit centres, and evacuation centres – and
it is used throughout this document. Where differences in site characteristics impact daily management
activities and the standards, these are explained in the guidance notes. Sites are locations where services,
infrastructures and resources are shared and managed collectively. To achieve this, effective site‐level
coordination between all stakeholders is a central task of every SMA.
Camps (of every temporary shelter category) should remain the option of last resort and a temporary
solution. Where they are established, agencies and authorities should seek to provide protection and
deliver the required range of life‐saving services across humanitarian sectors to a minimum standard.
Why is site management needed?
Where a dedicated SMA and its staff are present, more predictable and coordinated delivery of services is
ensured. Site managers and their teams enhance participation, foster accountability for affected people,
and facilitate information updates on affected populations needs for assistance, humanitarian aid
providers programs and governments services while improving the protective environment. The
structures developed by site managers are often key in empowering affected people to organise and
mobilise their communities, contribute to the delivery of assistance and make informed decisions for
themselves and their families.
Local authorities are often the first responders to a crisis. In some settings, they will be in charge of
all three roles in the CCCM framework (administration, coordination and management). In other
settings, national governments may ask external agencies or the CCCM Cluster to jointly lead the
emergency response.
In recent years, the CCCM sector has marked other trends in providing services to displaced persons. As
well as general urbanisation trends, other factors are leading to displaced people finding refuge in
alternative collective sites or preferring non‐formal camp environments. These include the limited
availability of land to legally occupy and use for generating livelihoods, restrictive access to markets,
security concerns and coping strategies. (Host governments are often reluctant to set up formal camps for
political reasons, wishing to avoid the visible acknowledgement of a displaced population under their
responsibility, or anticipating that local people will be drawn to camps in search of assistance and services
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
8
not available to them elsewhere. Formal, planned camps need intricate preparation, as well as adequate
land rights, budget and permission from authorities – all of which are often lacking. Moreover, many
displaced people prefer not to live in planned camps due to concerns such as poor access to markets and
livelihoods opportunities, as well as their association with a lack of freedom of movement.)
Where do these standards apply?
The standards apply across the full range of displacement site types, from planned or spontaneous
(unplanned) camps to collective centres, reception and transit centres, evacuation centres and – in certain
settings – to out‐of‐camp and area‐based approaches. There is a common view that populations living in
camps are clearly separated from surrounding areas. However, in reality borders are less rigid, and
movement between sites can be very fluid. CCCM organisations are actively involved in providing site
management assistance for displaced communities living in host communities and outside camp contexts.
The Error! Reference source not found. table below describe the range of sites covered by these standards.
Settlement types
Planned camps
Planned camps can be located in urban or rural locations. They are places where displaced populations
live in purposely constructed sites and have a dedicated management team. Services in planned camps
can include water supply, food distribution, non‐food item distribution, education and health care, from
humanitarian agencies or existing municipal infrastructure. These services are typically only for the people
living on the site.
Self‐settled
camps
Displaced groups, often family or related groups, may self‐settle in urban or rural sites on their own. These
types of camp‐like settings are typically independent of assistance for some time and may exist without
receiving any external or formal humanitarian support. Self‐settled camps are often situated on privately
owned land. They are characterised by limited or no negotiations with the local population or private
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
9
owners over use or access. In some cases, a camp management agency may operate nearby and learn
about the displaced persons' needs and try to bring them into the management structure so they can
receive assistance.
Collective centres
Displaced people may find accommodation in existing public buildings and community facilities, for
example schools, factories, barracks, community centres, town halls, gymnasiums, hotels, warehouses,
disused factories and unfinished buildings. These were likely not constructed as accommodation. They are
often used when displacement occurs in or to an urban setting. Similar to a camp, a collective centre is
meant only as temporary or transit accommodation. Levels of assistance vary from full to differing levels
of self‐reliance, and collective centre management can play a strong role in coordinating services.
Reception and
transit centres
Reception and transit centres may be needed at the start of an emergency as temporary accommodation
before people are transferred to a suitable, safe, longer‐term location, or at the end of an operation as a
staging point of return. They are, therefore, usually either intermediate or short term and may also host
returnees. Transit centres typically also provide more services to the population and only indirectly engage
in community participation activities and decision‐making.
Emergency
evacuation
centres
Emergency evacuation centres are set up to provide appropriate temporary shelter for persons fleeing a
specific and immediate threat, such as natural hazards like cyclones, fires and flooding. Schools, sports
arenas and religious or civic buildings are often used. They should be prepared and planned for in advance
of disaster events where and when possible. Central authorities need to plan for the number of people
per night, along with the estimated population flow.
Outside camp or
area‐based
approaches
Outside camp or area (sometime called neighbourhood) approaches apply to designated geographical
areas and can take place in urban, peri‐urban or rural settings. Activities are delivered by a mobile team
with adaptable skills and profiles. Their work focuses on setting up a centre to deliver site management
services to people living in the entire community, both host and displaced. Accommodation can include
rented premises and spontaneous settlements. They are most frequently used in dispersed and hard‐to‐
reach displacement settings. They have short lifespans as they are used for evolving emergency situations
and should be closely aligned with national structures.
Urban settings
Since 2008, 50 per cent of the world’s population has lived in cities, and urban populations are expected
to double in the next 40 years. Most population growth will be concentrated in cities and towns in the least
developed countries, particularly in South Asia and sub‐Saharan Africa.
The presence of IDPs and refugees in urban areas is directly linked to the global trend of increasing
urbanisation. At least 59 per cent of all refugees are now living in urban settings, and this percentage is on
the rise. As displacement is increasingly an urban and dispersed phenomenon, settled camps are becoming
the exception. Most IDPs (around 80 per cent) are choosing to remain outside identifiable camps or
settlements and are instead dispersed in urban, rural or remote settings, hosted by local families, living in
subsidised or rented housing, dispersed in urban environments, and often mixed with migrants and local
poor people, or gathered in small spontaneous settlements of three to five households.
An urban setting can be characterised by one or more of the following: administrative criteria or political
boundaries, population density and size, economic function, and the presence of urban characteristics.
Displaced people often settle in urban informal areas or marginalised neighbourhoods where resources
like availability of services, access to sanitation, and adequate shelter are already strained by the host
population. It makes targeted assistance more challenging and requires close collaboration with local
authorities and host communities by using a multi‐sectoral, multi‐cohort approach (area‐based approach)
to reach the intended recipients and enhance the response.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
10
Humanitarian Charter, humanitarian principles and Protection Principles
The Humanitarian Charter, humanitarian principles and Protection Principles are all foundational to
humanitarian action and apply to all crises.
The Humanitarian Charter provides the ethical and legal backdrop to the Protection Principles, the Core
Humanitarian Standard (CHS) and these standards. It is partly a statement of established legal rights and
obligations and partly a statement of shared belief. In terms of legal rights and obligations, the
Humanitarian Charter summarises the core legal principles that have the most bearing on the welfare of
people affected by disaster or conflict. In terms of shared belief, it tries to capture a consensus among
humanitarian agencies on the principles which should govern the response to disaster or conflict, including
the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. The Humanitarian Charter forms the basis of a
commitment by humanitarian agencies that endorse Sphere and an invitation to all those who engage in
humanitarian action to adopt the same principles.
Regardless of whether it is a national or international NGO or national authority who takes responsibility
for the site management, the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and operational
independence create the ethical foundation for stakeholders carrying out humanitarian work in
emergencies. The four principles are defined as follows:
The humanitarian principles
Humanitarian principles
Humanity
Neutrality
Impartiality
Human suffering must be
addressed wherever it is
found. The purpose of
humanitarian action is to
protect life and health and
ensure respect for human
beings
Humanitarian actors must
not take sides in hostilities
or engage in controversies
of a political, racial,
religious or ideological
nature.
Humanitarian action must.
Be carried out on the basis
of need alone, giving
priority to the most urgent
cases of distress and
making no distinction on
the basis of nationality,
race, gender, religious
belief, class or political
opinions.
Operational
independence
Humanitarian action must
be autonomous from the
political, economic,
military or other objectives
that any actor may hold
with regard to areas where
humanitarian action is
being implemented
SMAs, like all humanitarian organisations, must abide by the Protection Principles which support the rights
set out in the Humanitarian Charter and are based on the principle to do no harm. (Protection as defined
by the Inter‐Agency Standing Committee (IASC) is concerned with the safety, dignity and rights of the
people affected by disaster or armed conflict. It is defined as “... all activities aimed at obtaining full respect
for the rights of individuals in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant bodies of law (that
is, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law).”) The
principles articulate that the roles of humanitarian actors are separate from those of the state, which holds
legal responsibility for the welfare of people within its territory or control.  See The Sphere Handbook
2018, pages 33–48 for guidance notes and further reading.
Site managers contribute to protection by daily taking steps to avoid or minimise any adverse effects of
their intervention, in particular the risk of exposing people to increased danger or abuse of their rights.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
11
They do this when they talk with the different groups of the site population to assess the positive and
possible negative consequences of the response in general ( See Standard 2) and adapt the ways in which
services and assistance are provided, to minimise the risk of looting and violence ( See Standard 3). As
part of a site planning committee, SMAs ensure that sites are built or improved in areas away from conflict
( See Standard 4) and make sure there is safe and equal access to assistance and services for all groups
in the site for as long as necessary ( See Standard 5). The UNHCR Handbook for the Protection of Internally
Displaced Persons (2010) states the protection value of the coordination and management of collective
sites: “if undertaken with a protection perspective and in close partnership with protection actors, camp
management and coordination can ensure that displaced individuals enjoy their human rights as well as
their fair and unhindered access to available humanitarian services.”
 Read more in the UNHCR Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (2010) version 6
(page 385).
Camps as a last resort
Residence in a camp or any temporary collective site is not a durable solution. Rather, it is always a
temporary response to a situation of displacement. For all displaced people, achieving a durable solution
is the key to ending displacement and must be taken into account from the start of the response. There
are three types of durable solutions: repatriation and return, local integration and resettlement.
Durable solutions to situations of displacement
Durable solutions
Refugees
IDPs
Repatriation to the country of origin
Sustainable reintegration at the place of origin
(also referred to as return)
Integration in the country of asylum
Sustainable local integration in areas where IDPs
take refuge (also referred to as local integration)
Resettlement in a third country
Sustainable integration in another part of the
country (also referred to as settlement)
The IASC’s 2004 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement further outline the rights of IDPs relating to
return, resettlement and integration. Status as a refugee ends once a person re‐establishes a protective
state–citizen bond through one of the three durable solutions. There is no legal consensus as to when the
condition of being an IDP ceases because identification as an IDP does not confer special status under
international law. However, a person can be considered no longer displaced when she or he no longer has
protection and assistance needs directly related to her/his experience of displacement.
Because residence in a camp is only a temporary solution to displacement, the SMA plays an active role in
helping to decide whether a durable solution has been achieved – this is intrinsically linked to site closure.
In certain circumstances, the closure of a site does not mean a durable solution is attained. It is the role of
the SMA to coordinate with all stakeholders, including donors and national authorities, to advocate for the
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
12
conditions for an appropriate voluntary return, integration or resettlement process, and to inform
members of the site population of their rights.
Provider of last resort
In IDP settings where the cluster approach is initiated, the cluster lead agencies are charged with being the
“provider of last resort” (POLR) to ensure predictability of response.
Where necessary and depending on access, security and availability of funding, the cluster lead, as POLR,
must be ready to ensure the services are provided as needed to fulfil crucial gaps identified by the cluster
and reflected in the humanitarian response plan of the humanitarian country team, led by the
humanitarian coordinator.
Access, security and availability of funding
If the cluster lead has no funding to fill the gap or implement the required activities as POLR, the cluster
lead agency cannot be expected to implement these activities but should continue to work with the
humanitarian coordinator and donors to mobilise the necessary resources.
The Minimum Standards for Camp Management
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
13
1. Site management policies and capacities
Site managers have an essential role in enhancing participation, fostering accountability for affected
people, and facilitating information management updates between sectoral aid providers and
governments while improving the protective environment. For managers and other staff at sites to be able
to do this, the organisations for whom they work need to have mandates, policies, strategies and action
plans grounded in humanitarian and protection principles. Site managers and staff also need to be
equipped to carry out their work by being provided with supervision, training (both on‐the‐job and targeted
training), mentoring (working in pairs or with experienced staff), regular team meetings, regular feedback
sessions, periodic performance appraisals, written reports and equipment or logistics support.
Site management may be carried out by humanitarian organisations (national, international or voluntary)
or led by local or national government authorities. In spontaneous settlements, or at the start of an
emergency the community may lead the management of the site. National authorities are responsible for
providing security, maintaining law and order and guaranteeing the civilian character of a camp or
temporary site.
The site management team serves not only the site population and surrounding host community but also
service providers through its coordination, information management and representation role. While these
responsibilities are covered in subsequent standards, their central role is establishes the entry point for
accountability that enables other agencies to ensure a participatory approach in their work ( See in
particular Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1). Establishing inclusive and transparent partnerships will help to build
legitimacy inside and outside the site.
While sites are often set up with the expectation that they will be short term, planning should always
anticipate the need for longer‐term assistance, expansion and unexpected eventualities. The needs and
capacities of the host community should be also be assessed in relation to the services, infrastructure and
assets established. Services and infrastructure such as schools, community halls, roads, electricity cables
or water points may also benefit local communities.
States are fully responsible for the protection of everyone in their territories no matter their legal status,
whether displaced or members of host communities, and for ensuring public order and security from
threats. Humanitarian organisations must advocate that the national authorities assume their
responsibilities to help reduce exposure to threats and mitigate any devastating effects of the initial cause
of displacement.
The key actions and indicators described against these four standards may apply not just at the site level,
but to organisations, coordination platforms and the overall humanitarian response.
 Links to CHS Commitment 2.
Standard 1.1: Mandate, policies and presence
Affected populations have equitable access to protection and assistance through a
mandated site management agency for as long as necessary.
Key actions

An SMA is appointed by an overall response authority (government, cluster or
other) to be present to carry out management activities when an influx of
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
14


Key indicators



displacement requires specialised site management services (see guidance
notes).
The SMA must have humanitarian policies (including preventing sexual
exploitation and abuse (PSEA)) and strategies as well as leadership and
organisational systems that guide and encourage site management teams to
work in principled ways.
The SMA sets up a site management team, comprising people with the required
capacities and adequate resources.
o The site management team may cover more than one physical location,
depending on the context.
o Site management teams may be stationary or mobile or a combination of
the two.
1 site management team per 15,000 displaced persons (see guidance notes)
% of site population who are satisfied with overall levels of service
% of SMA staff who know the process for complaints against the SMA, including
PSEA
Guidance notes
The need for a site management team to be present at a location will be triggered by a significant
number of displaced people and the likely duration of displacement. The need for an external site
management team will depend on the capacity of local authorities or organisations to meet people’s
needs according to humanitarian principles.
The ratio of one site management team per 15,000 displaced persons needs to be contextualised taking
into account community capacities, the relationships between displaced and host communities, the
capacities of service‐providing organisations, and the type of sites, especially in evacuation centres and
transit sites.
For informal sites scattered in urban, peri‐urban or rural areas, the SMA could cluster sites based on the
number of individual locations, the distance between them, the needs at the sites and the number of
displaced people living in them, to assess and plan support needed from one mobile team. Site visits by
mobile site management teams should be regular and predictable to the population in specific
geographical areas.  For more information on out‐of‐camp site management, see the CCCM Cluster’s
2019 working paper, Management and Coordination of Collective Settings through Mobile / Area Based
Approach.
The site management team may have a base at site‐level offices, centralised or municipal offices or
community resource centres.
While adhering to the humanitarian principles ( See Introduction) is the cornerstone of humanitarian
response, the SMA must also show accountability in its activities which, by definition, exercise influence
and power over the lives of affected persons and communities.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
15
Pressure from media, donors and governments can be overwhelming at the start of a response. This can
push SMAs and teams into making promises and commitments they may not be able to keep. These
standards aim to support site management teams to avoid this through appropriate prioritisation and
sequencing of activities.
Standard 1.2: Site lifecycle planning
Appropriate and inclusive planning ensures adequate protection and assistance are
provided throughout the site lifecycle, from set-up to closure.
Key actions


Develop a site management action plan.
o
Engage with key members of the site population and other stakeholders
including the host community and local authorities.
o
Include both men and women in the project team and as key informants
from the population and host community.
o
Ensure community consultation is in appropriate language(s) and format(s)
for the stakeholders engaged.
o
Consider financial, material and HR resources, including the technical
needs and safety of the population.
Assess and include targeted actions for vulnerable persons and people with
specific needs.
o
Ensure protection assessment findings are reflected in site management
action plans.

Share a summary of the action plan with the host community and
representatives of local authorities.

Develop contingency plans for spontaneous arrivals, unplanned (forced
returns) closure and possible events that will affect the site, such as floods, fire
and other hazards.

o
Include HR, financial and equipment contingency needs in contingency
plans, at a minimum.
o
Engage service providers to feedback on contingency plans during
development.
o
Account for the needs of vulnerable people, making sure they are not at
increased risk in contingency plans.
Regularly review and update contingency plans as the situation and planning
scenarios evolve.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
16
Key indicators
o
Monitor the situation in and around the site by carrying out observation
and physical risk assessments to identify threats.
o
Ensure new service providers are incorporated into contingency plans and
evacuation procedures.
o
Practise emergency procedures.
o
Inform the population of their role in contingency planning.

Develop an agreement with host communities and local authorities detailing
the conditions needed to return land and infrastructure.


Community workshops are used to develop and share contingency plans.
Site management action plans and contingency plans are updated.
Guidance notes
From day one, the site management team’s job is one of constant motion and needs a high degree of
flexibility, quick thinking and prioritisation, innovation and careful planning. Informing, consulting,
involving and reporting to the key stakeholders (authorities, host community members, services
providers and people affected by the emergency) will include transparently sharing the intentions of the
site management team and consultation aimed at building effective partnerships. Is it critical to set clear
benchmarks and develop criteria to monitor implementation of the site management action plan based
on the profile of the population.
Consider the timing of consultations with displaced people about sensitive issues, including hazards and
closure, as early as is feasible but without causing additional stress.
While sites are often set up with the expectation that they will be short term, planning should always
aim for longer‐term needs, expansion and unexpected eventualities. The needs and capacities of the
host community should also be assessed in relation to the services, infrastructure and assets established.
Services and infrastructure such as schools, community halls, roads, electricity cables or water points
may also benefit local communities. Conversely, buildings which have been degraded due to their
temporary use as collective centres can have a negative impact on the local community. The eventual
handover of such assets during site closure should be defined and agreed with involved stakeholders
from the start. The planning of site set‐up/improvement and site closure are interrelated from the start.
 Site lifecycle planning should be done alongside Standards 3.2 An appropriate environment, 4.1 Site
coordination and 5.4 Planned closure.
 Read more about contingency planning in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 1, environmental
planning in Chapter 6, and safety and security in Chapter 12.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
17
Standard 1.3: SMA and site management team capacity
Site management teams have the operational and technical capacity to manage the
site.
Key actions




Key indicators



Coordinate with HR departments to ensure the site management team is
staffed in a similar representation to the site population.
o Balance the proportion of female and male personnel to reflect
communities and their needs.
o Ensure the presence of staff from key minority groups in the displaced
population, including religious or ethnic minority groups.
Train site management team staff in CCCM principles and practices.
Coach and train site management team staff in humanitarian principles and the
Code of Conduct.
o Ensure they understand the reporting significance and have signed a Code
of Conduct in an appropriate language.
o Include PSEA.
Ensure the site management team has enough appropriate equipment for the
context and the job.
Ratio of staff (female:male) is proportional to that of the site population.
% of site management staff who have signed a Code of Conduct
% of site management staff who have completed adequate training related to
their role
Guidance notes
The size and make‐up of a site management team is highly contextual and depends on a range of factors
including local government and community capacities, language and other communication needs, site
characteristics, site landscape features, service provision needs and service provider capacity, and
security conditions.
The site management team needs to have a balance of skills and capacities, whether in leadership,
protection, assistance, technical sectors, administration, IT, conflict management, information
management and/or community mobilisation. In some contexts, it might be favourable for female staff
to be over‐represented, since generally female staff are more able to speak with men in the population
than male staff are with women.
A dedicated site management team needs to be present in the site from the start and equipped with
the resources needed to carry out the tasks of representing the people affected by the crisis.
Adjustments to the core team should be made over time according to the planned activities and
conditions at the site.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
18
Site management teams need to be supported by organisations with humanitarian policies and
strategies in place as well as leadership and organisational systems, such as finance and HR, that guide
and encourage them to work in principled ways.
Local NGOs have proved to be successful site managers. Where country operations have adopted the
IASC cluster approach, cluster lead agencies are increasingly finding that where access to the site
population is granted, and its overall acceptance is achieved, this is a favourable option.
In cluster settings, the SMA will be allocated sites by the cluster coordinator or cluster lead agency. In
refugee settings, this allocation process will be coordinated by UNHCR. In other settings, the government
will play a key role. This should happen in close cooperation with local authorities while verifying their
capacities and resources.
In circumstances where field staff are not trained on the CHS nor on‐site management roles and
responsibilities, it will be the duty of the cluster or sector lead to appoint an NGO/UN agency to support
them in implementing the Minimum Standards for Camp Management. This support could also be used
for remote site management capacity building.
Core CCCM training for all site management staff includes at a minimum the following topics:







roles and responsibilities;
participation;
providing information and listening back (accountability);
humanitarian principles and Protection Principles;
coordination;
site improvement and planning; and
site closure (with reference to technical standards including Sphere or local building codes where
appropriate).
Beyond training in CCCM, staff should also be trained in the SMA’s Code of Conduct and PSEA. For almost
all agencies, the reporting of sexual exploitation or abuse (SEA) is mandatory and aimed at ensuring
standards for accountability for all. PSEA is a shared and mandated responsibility by the entire
humanitarian community, including local, national, regional and international partners. To combat it,
the UN has taken measures to prevent, report, investigate and impose sanctions against perpetrators of
SEA. One such measure was the development of in‐country networks. These act as the primary body for
coordination and oversight on prevention and response to SEA in the country in which it occurs. Gender
equality training is increasingly recognised as complementary to PSEA training.
 Read more about potential staff profiles and proficiencies in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter
2 and the Collective Centre Guidelines, UNHCR/IOM 2011. See the Recruiting, Training and Supervising
Staff checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
 For more information on available training resources see the Global CCCM Cluster Learning site at
www.cccmlearning.org/login/index.php.
PSEA resources
 Stop sexual exploitation and abuse by our own staff, Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
19
 See the IASC PSEA Six Core Principles.
 See the IASC and Global Protection Cluster’s 2015 Guidelines for Integrating Gender‐Based Violence
Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing risk, promoting resilience and aiding recovery.
 See the 2018 Report of the UN Secretary‐General: Conflict‐Related Sexual Violence.
 For plain language versions of the IASC’s six core principles in more than 100 languages, see
Translators Without Borders: https://translatorswithoutborders.org/psea‐translated.
Standard 1.4: Site resident database and data protection
All personal information collected from site populations is appropriately gathered,
stored and used.
Key actions

Establish and maintain a site resident database.

Know, understand and apply applicable data protection policies to data
collected by the SMA.

o
Ensure that proper procedures are in place to secure the data, including
safe and locked rooms, electronic backups, passwords and access
restrictions to sensitive data. Confidential documents should be clearly
marked.
o
Where necessary, personal information should be removed or replaced
with a code to protect anonymity.
o
Clear procedures should be in place for information to be protected or
destroyed in the event of evacuation or withdrawal.
Coordinate all site organisations to develop a site‐level agreed data sharing and
protection protocol, including defining consent and information sharing.
Agree:
o
what data needs to be collected and entered into a storage system, by
whom and how;
o
how dissemination of information or reports prepared from data minimises
risk to the site population; and
o
what information must remain restricted.

Coordinate with stakeholder agencies to train all enumerators in the agreed
sharing and protection rules.

Monitor and oversee the way data is used and shared.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
20
Key indicators

A specific consent and confidentiality protocol is agreed and in place for all
stakeholders operating at the site.

Information‐sharing practices are agreed and in place for all stakeholders
operating at the site.
Guidance notes
Increased interest and demand among both humanitarian organisations and governments to apply more
advanced methods of data science in humanitarian work highlights the need for SMAs and their site
management teams to better understand the challenges of introducing new technology or data
retention methods in the CCCM sector.
If biometrics and other systems are used, site populations must understand what their biometric
information will be used for and who the data will be shared with, how long it will be kept and whether
they have an alternative to biometrics collection.
Site management teams need to gather information on individuals to better target protection and
assistance responses. However, irresponsible processing of information can put people at serious risk as
well as invade their privacy. Finding the right balance between collecting and sharing information for the
benefit of site residents while protecting people against misuse of information should include the
following principles:
o
o
o
o
o
o
In determining what data needs to be collected, carefully assess why the information is needed.
Only information that serves a protection purpose, and that neither harms the informant nor
others, should be collected.
Identify data that can be especially sensitive to make sure the collection and sharing are subject
to protection measures.
Collect data in a way that is sensitive to protection concerns, to avoid jeopardising anyone’s
security and privacy.
Agree with all humanitarian stakeholders how the information is shared and define why it needs
to be shared. Only information relevant to a determined protection purpose should be shared.
Only share individual information with the informed consent of the person concerned. Explain
this to the person during data collection.
Do a risk analysis: the level of risk associated with different kinds of information will vary, and
the site management team should work with other operational agencies to assess the risk levels
and design information management systems accordingly.
 Read more about data protection and information management as well as the Information
Management checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 5. See also the Managing
Information checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
 See also the ICRC’s 2020 Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Standards.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
21
2. Community participation and representation
Making sure that all groups of the population participate meaningfully in decision‐making and site
governance structures is an essential part of good site management. Participation is central to upholding
the basic rights of displaced populations in all types of temporary settlements during humanitarian crises,
and to their health, psychosocial well‐being and safety. It is a key step towards making sure that different
needs, capacities and expectations of all groups in the displaced community are represented and
addressed, thus contributing to improving humanitarian response and accountability towards affected
populations. Well‐functioning sites depend on the site population participating in an active and meaningful
way. Supporting this will require training, coaching and encouraging community representatives to be
responsive leaders.
Degrees of participation
Source: Camp Management Toolkit
Participation in a long‐term process, which
requires an in‐depth understanding of the local
context. Its aim is not just to give a voice to the
different
groups
among
the
displaced
communities, but to go further and ensure that
residents are heard and take part in decisions
affecting their lives. Often, at the start of a rapid‐
onset emergency, site management teams and site
populations may not have the time or energy to
prioritise meaningful participation. Information
transfer methods, consultation processes, feedback mechanisms, and site governance structures need to
be established with this in mind – and they need to be set up early.
Barriers to participation depend on the context and will be different for distinct groups in the site
population and will vary over time. They can also be social or related to the physical environment. There
may be existing barriers from rules or policies that disadvantage certain population groups.
Communication activities in a site are essential in promoting meaningful community participation and
stakeholder accountability. Site residents’ views on life in the site should be considered and included in
most decision‐making processes. The role of site managers is to create a means for two‐way information
flow between the different stakeholders. It is from this transparent and constant dialogue around daily site
challenges that community participation becomes effective. As well as direct contacts with the site
population, it is increasingly common to use media like text messages and websites to promote dialogue
across a site.
 Links to CHS Commitments 3, 4, 5 and 8.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
22
Standard 2.1: Governance structures
Inclusive and representative governance structures are accountable to and have the
capacity to meet the needs of the site population.
Key actions
Key indicators

Assess and understand existing participation structures and power dynamics.

Consult with key informants in the community and other stakeholders about
the structure of and selection to site governance groups or committees.

Integrate with, adapt or support existing governance structures or community
leadership.

Assess the role of host communities and ensure they have a voice in
governance structures, especially in resolving disputes.

Develop terms of reference, including a code of conduct, for different site
management groups or committees.

Use an agreed participatory selection process for groups or committees.

Advocate for these participatory structures to play a significant role in decision‐
making processes related to providing assistance and protection in the site.

Communicate the roles and responsibilities of groups or committees to the
entire site population, including the host community.

Systematically assess ethical ways of engaging with women, youth and often
under‐represented people to respect dignity and avoid any increased stigma.
Support these people and groups to ensure they are included in decision‐
making processes and have a meaningful role.

Communicate with all external stakeholders (service providers, local
government and the host community) so they are aware of the agreed
governance structure, the role and responsibilities of the groups or
committees, and how to work with them.

Build the capacity of site governance committees or groups.

Monitor the performance of site governance committees and groups against
their terms of reference, and work with the committees and groups to make
sure they are accountable to the site population.

% of the site population who feel they are represented by and through the site
governance structure

% of site population who report that the site governance structures are
inclusive, effective and reaching all of the displaced population

Governance structures are representative of the make‐up of the population.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
23
Guidance notes
Generating a representative site governance structure that includes women, children and minority
groups will be different in each operational context. Community mapping exercises can be a useful tool
for SMAs. Over time and in every context (not just in long‐term protracted situations) this tool can make
the views of key stakeholders on critical issues clearer, as well as the needs of people and their preferred
way of communicating.
The barriers (cultural, physical or socio‐economic) that could impede certain groups from participating
meaningfully in governance structures need to be recognised, and measures taken to mitigate these.
Understanding the power dynamics already in play in the community, both displaced and host, as well
as the barriers that different groups face to participating in decision‐making, are crucial steps to define
the best way to work towards increasing the participation of all groups.
In some contexts – particularly outside camps – community representation, governance structures or
leadership may already exist. As such, it is crucially important to do a thorough analysis to understand
how these groups work, their role and the extent to which they are adequately able to represent the
entire community. Depending on the outcome of this analysis, new structures may need to be created.
Still, it may be more appropriate to widen existing structures, or simply to increase their support and
capacity building to enable them to play a role in coordinating and managing humanitarian assistance
and protection.
Participatory models for short‐term collective centres (including transit sites and evacuation centres)
typically focus on improving data collection or distribution, designing appropriate humanitarian services,
and providing forums for information dissemination and conflict resolution. Models for these frequently
take the form of steering committees, community notice boards or sub‐sector technical groups. Long‐
term collective centres can have similar aims but take different forms (such as national associations),
link up with civil society or have advocacy goals.
Ensuring that consultations happen with community members to prioritise their specific cultural
practices and traditions in the immediate aftermath of a hazard can be invaluable to building back social
cohesion. At the same time, some cultural practices may harm elements of the community, and site
managers need to balance tradition with respect for human rights. Therefore, not only men, women,
children and vulnerable groups should be represented in a governance structure, but also cultural
leaders and representatives.
Inform or consult with local market actors as a stakeholder group, linking livelihoods to early recovery,
even in remote sites.
 Read more about setting up representatives and governance structures in the Camp Management
Toolkit Chapters 2 and 3 and in the CCCM Cluster Collective Centre Guidelines Chapter 4. See also the
Setting Up Governance and Community Participation Mechanisms checklist in the Camp Management
Toolkit Chapter 2.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
24
Standard 2.2: Community participation
The site population is able to participate meaningfully in decision-making related to
the management of the site.
Key actions
Key indicators

Plan and budget for adequate time and resources needed for developing
effective participation as part of site management.

Agree with other stakeholders that the site population participates in and is
involved with each stage of the project cycle – assessment, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Train and support site staff to use participation methodologies.

Encourage the use of participatory approaches and methodologies by service
providers.

Monitor and manage the potential abuse of participation and power.

Adjust site management programming to respond to monitoring of needs.

% of the site population who are satisfied with the opportunities they have to
influence site decisions

% of female committee members who feel their views are taken into account
during decision‐making processes

% of inter‐agency coordination meetings involving community representatives
Guidance notes
There is often an assumption that women’s participation requires a separate mechanism. This may be
a useful way to engage with women in restrictive cultural environments and separate groups may also
be needed to provide the privacy and space for women to discuss issues that affect them. However,
separate groups should be combined with strengthening women’s participation in general site
governance structures. Women’s participation in general committees should be also promoted to avoid
men having a sole or majority influence in site decision‐making.
Participation in decision‐making can be formal or informal, engaging different stakeholders such as
service providers. While it will be useful to use different participatory approaches and strategies,
employing a mix of differing organisational policies, internal experiences, support (indirectly through
staffing or directly through funding) may confuse and create tensions in the site population. The SMA
should start a dialogue with all relevant stakeholders to promote transparency in the approaches used
with the site population and set up forums for sharing best practices and lessons learned. The SMA
should establish the right balance between direct community participation and indirect representation
by elected representatives through the various stages of response.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
25
Self‐selection by participants could be seen as a way of overcoming too narrow or too broad a selection
in some situations. Advertising topics of discussion or decision‐making in advance allows participants to
some extent choose how, where and when they want to contribute.
SMAs will also need to consider host communities, how displacement affects them and their access to
resources, to avoid creating tensions and incorporate ways they can participate in the decisions that
affect them.
In non‐camp settings, the community structure is trained to identify priorities and solve collective
problems in much the same way as traditional planned and informal sites. The contrast of participatory
techniques in these two CCCM approaches will be more about who the engagement is targeted towards.
In camp settings, this is primarily NGOs, and in area‐based CCCM programmes, this is a larger audience
including local governments or authorities and service providers.
SMAs should understand that people with specific needs includes people who have long‐term sensory,
physical, psychological, intellectual or other impairments that, in interaction with various barriers,
prevent them from participating in or having access to humanitarian programmes, services or
protection. Humanitarians should strive to recognise the capacities of people with specific needs to
contribute to the humanitarian response as well as the multiple forms of discrimination they face.
 Read more about modes of participation and challenges to it as well as the Community Participation
checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 3. See also the Setting Up Governance and
Community Participation Mechanisms checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
 Read more about the rights of persons with disabilities at
www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention‐on‐the‐rights‐of‐persons‐with‐disabilities.html.
 Read more about women’s participation in the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)’s Improving
Participation and Protection of Displaced Women and Girls Through Camp Management Approaches.
 Watch how to use the coaching technique to build the participation of camp committees in both
traditional sites and out‐of‐camp approaches on
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cExBGw9g3aM.
 Read more about non‐camp settings in the Global CCCM Cluster’s 2019 Management and
Coordination of Collective Settings Through Mobile / Area Based Approach Working Paper.
Standard 2.3: Information sharing with communities
Regular communication with the displaced community, host community and all other
stakeholders is appropriate and relevant.
Key actions

Develop information dissemination mechanisms in appropriate language(s)
and format(s) for the stakeholders engaged.
o
Ensure initial and ongoing assessments include questions on preferred
communication languages, formats and channels.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
26

Create and regularly update agreed standardised key messages or FAQs to be
used by all agencies.
o

Develop minimum standards or guidelines for information sharing and
encourage all service providers to use these.

Regularly disseminate to the site population information about services
provided, including organisational roles and mandates, details of the service
and contact information.
o
Key indicators
During disease outbreaks, seek comprehensive guidance about community
messaging from health actors, including national ministries of health.
Ensure this is updated as services change, for example, changing food
rations.

Follow up with site populations to ensure messages and information has been
received and understood.

% of the site population able to name service providers (an organisation or staff
name)
% of the site population who consider recent key messages appropriate
Appropriate modes of dissemination are used to share key messages.


Guidance notes
The key actions for both camp and non‐camp settings emphasise creating and sharing site‐level
information campaigns for displaced communities and host communities. The main difference for out‐
of‐camp settings would be the different kinds of modalities needed – as it is much harder to spread
information outside planned sites (all types) in out‐of‐camp neighbourhoods as people are dispersed
and isolated. In such settings, there is also a need to build on existing mechanisms for information
sharing while considering the wider variety of population needs in the area. Camp settings are more
likely to have a relatively more homogeneous site profile with similar levels of vulnerability.
Focus groups could be used in transit centres and evacuation sites to share information with site
populations.
Site populations are likely to have varying levels of literacy (for example, children’s literacy is different
to adult literacy), and in some locations more than one language. They are also likely to rely on different
information sources, for example, youth and older people often rely on quite different sources of
information.
 Read more about disseminating information and see the Disseminating Information checklist in the
Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
Standard 2.4: Feedback and complaints
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
27
Site populations, both displaced and host, have access to safe and responsive
mechanisms to handle feedback and complaints to service providers.
Key actions

At site set‐up and with the site population and service providers, establish
harmonised feedback and complaints mechanisms, including response.
o
As necessary, coordinate or consolidate different mechanisms from service
providers.
o
Use a set of different formats for submission of feedback and complaints,
such as verbal, written, electronic, paper‐based, comments boxes, help
desks and hotlines.
o
Ensure the mechanism(s) is able to maintain confidentiality.
o
Make sure the mechanism includes agreed and realistic response
timeframes.
o
Establish a feedback and complaints tracking system.
o
Update standard operating procedures as required, for example, changed
service levels.

Ensure that information about feedback and complaints mechanisms is
available in appropriate language(s) and format(s) to account for different
levels of literacy and technology use and is accessible for people with specific
needs.

Train staff on confidentiality.
o

Respond to, track and document feedback and complaints.

Make sure a PSEA reporting channel(s) and follow‐up mechanism is in place.
o
Key indicators
Work with service providers to make sure all staff across the site have a
shared understanding.
Raise awareness among the site population, both displaced and host, of
PSEA and how to report incidents.

Monitor that the feedback and complaints mechanism(s) is functioning. If
necessary, follow up directly with service providers if the site population fails
to get a response from an individual agency mechanism.

% of site population aware of feedback and complaints mechanisms and know
how to access them

% of complaints or feedback investigated, resolved and results fed back to the
complainant within the agreed time frame.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
28

% of member groups of site governance structure having trained on the Code
of Conduct
Guidance notes
Receiving feedback in camp settings often has negative associations. People who have missed out on
assistance have a right to complain, and while all complaints may not receive a resolution, they do all
need to receive a response. The language of the displaced community should be the preferred language
of the population. Standard operating procedures for complaints procedures should be established and
accompanied by training for staff and community leaders, and should include aspects of accessibility,
effectiveness and confidentiality.
The views and needs of all members of the displaced community, including people living in the host
community, are heard via feedback and complaints mechanisms in multiple formats.
Examples of communication tools used for feedback include complaint committees, grievance
committees, suggestion boxes, radio with call‐in service, letters addressed to the SMA or humanitarian
community, hotlines, and SMS messaging. They also include house‐to‐house visits with a standardised
monitoring form filled in by SMA staff during predefined hours.
It is important to develop procedures that ensure anonymity and confidentiality. Follow‐up and referral
procedures of sensitive issues such as SEA and human rights violations should preferably be the
responsibility of one agency that acts as the protection focal point, or the relevant sector agency.
The approaches used must address the specific context and will depend on the way feedback is handled.
A mixture of informal and formal mechanisms is often used. Ideally, feedback and complaints
mechanisms should be designed with methods of communication commonly used, preferred and
understood by the people involved. These should all be taken into account when putting in place an
appropriate feedback and complaints mechanism: the literacy rate of the site population; the safe access
to use the mechanism by all, including vulnerable groups; the confidentiality of communication support
and the available resources to roll out the process.
As much as possible, the SMA should coordinate and harmonise the different formal and informal
feedback mechanisms, avoiding duplications and promoting that they are set up when none exist. Above
all, the SMA should advocate for all agencies to be involved.
Gathering of protection data must only take place when response capacity is in place and an explanation
can be given to site residents as to how this information will be used. The lead protection agency should
build capacity on agencies needing more support to ensure confidentiality, setting up the referral of
cases for specialised protection agencies and adequate case management systems.
 Read more about feedback and complaints mechanisms in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter
3.
 For more resources on designing a complaints mechanism see The Sphere Handbook 2018 edition,
pages 66–70, which are part of the  CHS – Commitment 5.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
29
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
30
3. Site environment
The location and planning of a site have a critical impact on the health, well‐being and protection of the
displaced population, as well as on the SMA’s ability to manage daily activities, ensure participation and
develop relationships with the host community. Just as important as the physical location and layout of the
site is the process by which a site is established, grows, changes, improves and ultimately closes down.
While sites are often set up with the expectation that they will be short term, planning should always aim
for longer‐term needs, expansion and unexpected eventualities. The needs and capacities of the host
community should also be assessed in relation to the services, infrastructure and assets established – such
as schools, community halls, roads, electricity cables and water points – which may also benefit local
communities.
National authorities are ultimately responsible for allocation of land. The SMA, with the support of the
cluster/sector lead agencies if they exist, must ensure all actions taken during the lifecycle of the site are
comprehensive, inclusive, well‐coordinated and uphold the rights of the displaced population. It is
important to note that in some contexts, especially during displacement related to disasters caused by
natural hazards, the site management and coordination roles are more and more often being carried out
by national authorities.
The local authorities are not only often the first responders to a crisis, but in some settings they will be in
charge of managing sites directly. In other settings, national governments may ask external agencies or the
CCCM Cluster to jointly lead the emergency response.
 Links with CHS Commitment 1.
Standard 3.1: A safe and secure environment
All site residents and service providers live in a dignified environment that is safe
and secure from harm or violence.
Key actions


With governance structures and service providers, develop a site‐based safety
plan at site set‐up. Update this plan regularly.
o
Ensure the SMA has adequate capacity in safety and security assessment
and response.
o
Use a risk‐based approach to evaluate external and internal threats and
appropriate measures to respond to them.
o
Regularly assess the site for risks, and update contingency plans according
to emerging risks.
o
If necessary, develop relocation plans.
With service providers, site planners and community governance structures,
undertake regular observational and safety audits of the site, evaluating both
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
31
physical infrastructure and community behaviour. Develop a response plan to
address “red flags” found during safety audits.
Key indicators
o
With protection colleagues, include gender‐based violence (GBV) and
other protection risks in safety audits, and make sure measures are in
place, based on needs, to mitigate risks and to respond to these risks.
o
Monitor population densities in and across the site.
o
In response to red flags, consider site reorganisation or population
resettlement in the site.
o
If necessary, implement relocation plans for households or services located
in unsafe areas.

Establish safety committees at the relevant levels to address site‐specific
threats or risks.

Establish and maintain information channels to communicate risks to the site
population.

Train SMA staff adequately in safety and security and put in place appropriate
security measures.

Follow appropriate referral mechanisms.

% of recommended mitigation actions from safety audit directly integrated into
site maintenance and improvement plans (or addressed with site maintenance
activities)
Guidance notes
Safety audits are a tool designed to give SMAs and service providers an understanding of how all groups
(including those at risk such as adolescents, older people and people with specific needs) feel about their
safety and security when using site facilities during both day and night. Depending on the context, safety
audits should be done together with a protection specialist or with specially trained focal people. The
results of the safety audits, observational monitoring and mapping of the results can then be used to
work with site planners and service providers (where available) to develop appropriate interventions to
address any concerns. These interventions may include installing additional key facilities where needed,
expanding or reducing parts of the site as needed, and redirecting traffic and livelihoods to maintain a
balance between overly dense and less used parts of the site.
As a safety intervention, more lighting could be installed, but SMAs and service providers should be
aware of the potential unintended consequences of this. Community consultation is an essential part of
the solution.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
32
Relocating households to different parts of the site is an extremely complex undertaking, with many
protection risks which may undermine existing community structures and capacities. Such moves should
only be taken if there are no alternatives, and in full consultation with everyone involved.
The problem of high population densities in different parts of a site (such as around markets and water
points) can be a key factor contributing to a heightened risk of GBV or other forms of protection risk.
Observational audits will help to understand and highlight problem areas and potential solutions.
It is not enough to only consult women and children about safety and dignity, the results of consultations
must be acted upon. Be aware of social hierarchies and power dynamics, and actively engage with
decision‐makers to reinforce the rights of women and children to safely access facilities in the site.
Safety committees is a broad term which could include all forms of security in a site but is usually related
to voluntary actions for fire prevention, search and rescue, first aid and so on.
 Read more about site safety and security as well as the Safety and Security checklist in the Camp
Management Toolkit Chapter 12.
Standard 3.2: An appropriate environment
All site residents have an environment that is physically, socially and culturally
appropriate.
Key actions

Set up a site development committee to facilitate community participation.

Use community consultations to ensure the site plan meets the needs of all
groups in the site.
o
Find out site population expectations of the appropriate use of facilities,
noting these may not all be the same.
o
Assess changes in site population needs and capacities from the pre‐crisis
context.
o
Identify immediate needs and capacities for both the displaced and host
communities, and consider any specific needs of at‐risk groups.
o
Support the most vulnerable people to voice their needs during planning,
and advocate that their needs are taken into account in the design and
maintenance of site facilities.
o
Engage with disability groups in the site population. Appoint a focal person
for people with specific needs on the site management team. If possible,
retrofit modifications to site facilities or negotiate special access to meet
their needs.
o
Monitor community participation in site planning to ensure continued
engagement and appropriate resource use.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
33

Plan and set up a site‐wide address system.
o Take into account non‐literate residents.
o For facilities (collective centres, transit sites) this takes the form of room
allocation rather than address system.

Throughout the site lifecycle, advocate for adequate and appropriate technical
expertise to plan, establish and maintain the site.
o

Assess and develop the technical capacity of the displaced and host
communities.
Engage with community leadership structures, national or local authorities and
service providers, to set up the site according to the site plan.
o
Through advocacy, ensure the affected population has access to essential
services and facilities, including education and livelihoods opportunities.
o
Engage with the community, site planners and service providers to address
and resolve problems encountered during site improvement.
o
Bring together key actors including service providers to establish an
acceptable distance and safe travel (or transport) to essential services and
facilities.
o
Coordinate with site planners, technical experts and service providers to
prioritise and deliver essential services and livelihoods opportunities where
there are none.
o
Work with site planners to prioritise competing technical requirements and
sequence these appropriately.

Ensure that facilities for mourning and burying the deceased reflect cultural
norms, noting these may not all be the same.

Consider the environmental impact of the site and make plans to limit
environmental damage.

Ensure space and appropriate places for cultural facilities for religious practices
and rituals, performing arts, cultural events and festivities and so on.

With community representatives, make sure that any community‐managed
facilities are maintained, and that decommissioning is considered.

Maintain basic site infrastructure, either through advocacy to service providers
or through direct action.
o
Include a budget line for basic maintenance in project proposals.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
34
Key indicators

There is an agreed site plan developed with community involvement and
appropriate technical expertise that meets the needs of all groups in the
displaced population.

% of the site population, including host communities, indicating that the site
reflects their needs, safety and priorities
Guidance notes
The role of site managers and their teams in planning sites or site improvements is to ensure that all
stakeholders, including the site population and host communities, participate in developing the site plan.
Site managers support site residents and host communities to influence site planning and site
improvement decision‐making through participatory methods such as assessment, consultative
meetings, focus group discussions and go‐and‐see visits. People with specific needs and marginalised
groups should be consulted to make sure the site plan reflects and addresses their needs.
A site development committee includes relevant local or national authorities, cluster/sector leads, site
planners, service providers, hydrologists, engineers, members of the site population, GIS experts, public
health experts, lawyers and experts in land tenure and other relevant technical experts as needed.
In area‐based or mobile camp management operations, as well as places where people have already
self‐settled, site improvements will need to be done gradually, as people initially will naturally have
feelings of ownership which could make replanning more difficult without extensive consultations.
In urban displacement contexts, precarious land tenure agreements and lack of space make it almost
impossible to undertake heavy improvements and maintenance works. In these cases, the SMA could
opt for low tech site improvement, coupled with housing, land and property due diligence processes and
land advocacy with competent local authorities. Likewise, in certain urban contexts, site management
could advocate for communal facilities such as schools, community centres and primary health care
posts to be built in places that can be accessed by the populations of more than one displacement site
and host communities.
Area‐based CCCM approaches offer a new way to provide assistance defined by geography, through a
mix of social analysis and service delivery, with site management servicing districts, neighbourhoods or
targeted communities over individuals or households. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster,
demolition and rubble removal will need to be done, alongside meeting the immediate needs of
providing temporary shelter to people affected. It must be agreed which areas or buildings should be
cleared first and which can be used for temporary sheltering options.
Also, due to legal regulations, the need for post‐disaster criminal investigations, the need to preserve
historical building sites, and the priorities of privately owned and state‐owned properties must be taken
into account. These can be some of the key delays or barriers to eventual reconstruction and finding
temporary sheltering options.
Site planning should also consider multiple or sequential disasters: for example, an earthquake,
followed by heavy rain , then aftershocks where those living in sites will be affected by multiple disasters
and the site will require multiple technical upgrades.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
35
Site managers managing evacuation centres in urban environments must advocate being connected to
the network of reopened/restored roads, to all public services (for example, schools in one direction,
the town hall in another) as the effects of aftershocks or other subsequent disaster events may have a
significant negative impact on the continued use of mass shelter options like sports halls.
Service providers should be encouraged to develop technical options that respect the rights of all people,
including persons with disabilities and of all ages, to safely access facilities. However, specific or adapted
inclusive design and construction may be needed for children, older persons and people with mobility
barriers. In areas where there is overlap, SMAs should coordinate partners to meet. Referral pathways
should be regularly updated and tested.
Use spatial planning and the thematic indicators in Sphere to determine the right ratio of the number of
communal facilities for each section of the site.
Site planning and set‐up play a crucial role in making sure that a community can continue specific
practices, traditions and transmission of knowledge and skills in the immediate aftermath of a hazard.
Therefore, not only men, women and vulnerable groups should be represented in a governance
structure, but also cultural leaders and representatives, as well as marginalised and stigmatised groups.
How people use the spaces in the site on a daily basis will vary in each context based on the cultural
aspects of the inhabitants, the phase of the emergency and time of day or year, and will likely change
over time. Understanding the everyday practices of the site residents can become a key factor in meeting
their needs and ensuring safety across the site.
Mobile site management teams can still be involved in improving sites. The mobile teams can facilitate
essential site maintenance activities wherever people find themselves and coordinate (or directly
organise) shelter improvements to support minimum living standards and protection. Mobile teams
may:



provide household‐level internal partitions or window and door repairs;
mitigate site hazards such as debris removal, or simple sanitation network repair; or
facilitate forms of tenure security for displaced communities living in informal sites (such as
rental and right to occupancy agreements).
 See Sphere’s Shelter and settlement standard 2: Location and settlement planning.
 Read more about site managers and site planning as well as the Set‐up checklist in the Camp
Management Toolkit Chapter 7. See also the Ensuring the Maintenance of Camp Infrastructure
checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
 For more information on site improvements in collective centres and other out‐of‐camp settings, see
the CCCM Cluster’s Management and Coordination of Collective Settings Through Mobile / Area Based
Approach Working Paper.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
36
4. Site service coordination and monitoring
Site coordination is the process of sharing information and planning to achieve agreed mutual goals. It
involves bringing together relevant humanitarian organisations and site populations to ensure activities
are complementary and support the populations in realising their basic rights. Coordination aims to ensure
assistance and protection are provided to the site population in an efficient and accountable way.
Standards of living in the site must be maintained, as must full and equal access to basic human rights for
the site population.
Services need to be planned and carried out with care and responsibility towards the site population to
ensure acceptability, use and adequate maintenance. Services must be planned, implemented and
monitored using technical excellence and a sound understanding of the physical and environmental
characteristics of the site, cultural habits and norms, and the specific needs and priorities of vulnerable
user groups. The SMA should not underestimate the need for strong technical support. The SMA and
service providers need to make sure that enough skilled staff are available for effective programme design,
technical supervision and monitoring.
Coordination at and between site, community and country levels
SMAs will operate in a coordination setting beyond the
site. Coordination also takes place between sites, at
regional and national levels. The primary role of the site
management team is coordination within a site rather
than between sites, except in area‐based contexts where
the team may cover multiple sites. The SMA will also
need to report to national coordination mechanisms on
the condition of the site.
Service providers at site level will likely also be operating
in a broader coordination setting, probably at national
level and possibly at sub‐national level, for example, clusters or a thematic coordination platform. They
will need to report their operations to these mechanisms.
The success of the coordination process is underpinned by developing and maintaining transparent and
effective partnerships with diverse stakeholders, including national authorities, the CCCM cluster/sector
lead, service providers, the site population and the host community.
 Links to CHS Commitments 1, 4 and 6.
Standard 4.1: Site coordination
Services are coordinated to meet the needs of the displaced and host populations.
Key actions

Act as a focal point for all activities and issues taking place across the site.

Map all stakeholders (who, what, where) and help agree and clearly set out
how tasks will be divided between them.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
37

Maintain open communication and coordination channels with the relevant
national and local authorities.

Establish and maintain good relations with host populations, supporting them
to participate in work and activities across the site.

Regularly bring together site‐level stakeholders to share information, gather
concerns, make collective decisions and update organisations.
o


Plan, implement and monitor protection and assistance activities and
outcomes throughout the site lifecycle.
o
Understand standards for safety, protection and dignity, noting the role of
other sectors in setting those standards.
o
Make sure essential services are placed in settlements in a way that follows
those standards.
Provide regular updates on work plans, the ability to meet minimum standards
and responding to changes in the site.
o
Key indicators
Use different ways of sharing information other than meetings.
Establish sectoral minimum quality standards in consultation with clusters
or sectors, service providers and the site population.

Advocate that the search for durable solutions is included in all actions done
with and for the site population.

Advocate for the inclusion of site representatives and governance structures in
overall and sectoral coordination mechanisms.

Coordination meetings include all stakeholders or stakeholder groups.

Coordination meetings include representatives of the displaced and/or
host community.

% of agenda items that are developed jointly with the representatives of
the displaced and/or host community

% of meeting action points that are acted on in the agreed time frame
Guidance notes
Coordination does not mean meetings, although they can be a useful venue for decision‐making.
Decision‐makers should go to meetings so that problems are addressed and resolved quickly. Separate
level meetings are time‐consuming, and the aim of coordination is not to delay decision‐making or make
assistance ineffective. It is not necessary to duplicate coordination structures at all levels.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
38
For sensitive issues, other forms of coordination may be useful and appropriate, such as bilateral
meetings with partners. It is critical to be aware of which issues should be handled with discretion.
In non‐camp settings, the exchange of information will be between a broader range of stakeholders
including local authorities. In these circumstances, the role of the site management team will be to
support site/area‐level coordination by convening and connecting various stakeholders, including
community members (both displaced and host communities), and to strengthen/establish
communication and coordination mechanism(s).
 Read more about coordination tools and challenges as well as the Coordination checklist in the Camp
Management Toolkit Chapter 4. See also the Coordinating and Monitoring Assistance and Service
Provision checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 2.
 Read more about coordination in out‐of‐camp settings and the work of the Global CCCM Cluster’s
Area‐based Approach Working Group on the CCCM website: https://cccmcluster.org/global/Area‐based‐
Approach‐Working‐Group.
 Read more about the role of women in coordination in the NRC’s Improving Participation and
Protection of Displaced Women and Girls Through Camp Management Approaches.
 Watch how a camp manager coordinates on:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xlp6vmo_L0&feature=emb_logo.
Standard 4.2: Site service assessment, monitoring and reporting
The site population’s needs are monitored and reported through established
systems.
Key actions

Know who your population is and their needs and capacities.

Ensure service providers are aware of the role of the SMA in monitoring gaps
and needs.

Establish and maintain communication channels between the site governance
structure and service providers.

Create or develop an agreed harmonised assessment tool for site profiles.
o

Undertake joint, multi‐sector assessments to understand needs and capacities
following significant changes in the population or site conditions.
o

Set up sectoral indicators in consultation with clusters or sectors and
service providers.
Involve the site population in monitoring services.
Collect data and manage information on service needs across the site.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
39
Key indicators
o
Coordinate with service providers to ensure that gaps and duplications in
the delivery of assistance and services are identified and responded to.
o
Apply confidentiality and data protection policies to individual and family
information.
o
See sectoral minimum quality standards.

Support data sharing agreements where possible between service providers in
the site to avoid duplication of work.

Feedback site‐based information to national coordination mechanisms.

Make sure site residents have regular and timely access to accurate
information to guide their individual and family decisions to return, integrate
or resettle. Ensure the information is in an appropriate language(s) and
format(s).
o
Share with site populations the results from any assessments in potential
areas of return, integration or resettlement to independently determine
the safety of the options.
o
With service providers, develop key messages for identified vulnerable
people to be informed about continuing access to services throughout the
process.
o
Relate information, at a minimum, to legal (protection), health, education,
water supply and energy services, livelihood opportunities, markets and
religious and cultural institutions.
o
Conduct regular intention surveys and other forms of consultation at the
household level to evaluate how households are making decisions and if
there are barriers to their preferred options.
o
Understand and address rumours quickly.
o
Through community participation mechanisms, monitor community‐level
trends in solution choice, including the timing and conditions of any move.

Site indicators are agreed with partners.

% site profiles updated within the agreed timeframe

% of site population who are able to express their informed desire for return,
integration or resettlement

% of site population aware of where to access information on options for
durable solutions
Guidance notes
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
40
SMAs need to have a leading role in what information is being collected in the site to be informed and
highlight the gaps, needs and capacities of the population. Reporting outputs expected from an SMA
will be different in each context. At a minimum, an SMA needs to know who is in their site, the needs of
their population and the agencies who are providing it. SMAs also need to know how the differences
between the sexes, age groups and populations groups are affected in their settings.
The SMA is also responsible for producing a report to stakeholders on activities and prioritised gaps.
This is particularly true for informal sites or in mobile approaches which may not be as frequently
monitored by service providers.
If information is being collected and documented by another stakeholder, depending on the sensitivity
of that data, SMA staff should join the data collection team. Prior agreements on what information is
being gathered by who are crucial as these protect the site community from data collection fatigue and
prevent the duplication of similar information.  See Standard 1.4 for more information.
Focus groups can reveal a wealth of detailed information and deep insight. When well executed, a focus
group creates an accepting environment that puts participants at ease allowing them to thoughtfully
answer questions in their own words and add meaning to their answers. A good focus group requires
planning.
Care should be taken in sharing information about returns, integration or resettlement with site
populations not to raise unrealistic expectations. Gathering information on any development
programming in those locations will be useful. Understanding the desires for solutions and addressing
rumours will be a sensitive task.
If regular service monitoring is conducted, multi‐sectoral assessments should only be needed following
a significant change in the population or site conditions. Site management staff should be involved in
the planning for any large assessments run by agencies.
For non‐camp settings, the above also applies. However, more time will be needed to agree with
stakeholders what information to collect, why and how.
 Read more about site service monitoring in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 4. See also the
Coordinating and Monitoring Assistance and Service Provision checklist in the Camp Management
Toolkit Chapter 2.
 See also Standard 2.2: Community participation.
Standard 4.3: Referral pathways
People in need are referred to specialised service providers.
Key actions

Build awareness for the site population and all organisations working in the site
of critical referral pathways for health services, GBV, child protection and other
protection services.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
41

Minimise overlap between service providers and help streamline referral
pathways.

Train SMA staff in critical referral pathways and ensure staff know how to
appropriately and ethically advise people on how to access them.

Make sure follow‐up procedures on referrals are in place, for example through
a referrals database.

Share any updated case management protocols (such as child protection and
GBV) with all relevant partners.

Advocate for specialist services or for an increase in specific services as
conditions change.
o
Key indicators
Advocate for quality specialist services.

Help community governance structures or representatives to play a key role in
referrals as appropriate (subject to relevant training).

Promote systems for self‐referral.

Functioning referral pathways are in place to ensure that people with specific
or specialised needs receive the assistance and protection required.
Guidance notes
While referral pathways are developed by specialised agencies, an SMA has a crucial role through its
constant (or regular) presence in the site to disseminate information to communities about specialised
services in a timely manner. Referral pathways may be essential for key technical services including
health, security, GBV, protection, child protection, child survivors of GBV and missing persons.
A comprehensive understanding of the risk factors faced by vulnerable groups, particularly women and
girls, and the causes of these risks is essential for effective prevention interventions. SMAs are
responsible and accountable for working at the site level, together with the relevant authorities and
protection actors, to protect all people living in the site.
A survivor of GBV should be fully informed of his/her choices, the services available and the potential
positive and negative consequences of accessing those services. Awareness of service providers about
existing referral pathways is sometimes more challenging where there is limited capacity in field
locations. Organisation and critical services should be encouraged to have services in the site and not
just place an agency flag or sign at the entrance of the site where no activities are taking place. Sharing
resources or saying when your agency does not have capacity to respond is preferable to not delivering
on services.
 See also Sphere Protection Principle 3.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
42
5. Exit and transition
As humanitarian situations change, the management of many sites will transfer from one organisation to
another at least once over the life of the site. This transfer may be to international or national NGOs or
more likely to national or local authorities, who may take on a site management role in addition to their
other mandates. The transition may also be more widespread, affecting service providers and other
stakeholders. Transition to a new site manager does not usually involve closing the site, but instead
requires services to continue being provided to people seeking protection and assistance.
Site closure, like site set‐up and planning, changes depending on its context. It can take place for a variety
of reasons and in a diverse number of ways or stages. These range from planned and orderly closures
influenced by organised, voluntary return movements or dwindling donor support, to abrupt and disorderly
closures due to disasters caused by natural hazards, security threats or government coercion. In some
cases, while assistance and service provision phase out, the site itself does not close, in terms of the
removal of its infrastructure or its function as a community location. It may itself become a viable
permanent settlement, town or site of economic or social activity. It may also simply return to its previous
function. Partial or total unplanned closures that involve forced return require strategic and proactive
management mechanisms to be put in place to guarantee the protection of the affected people.
Whatever the circumstances, careful planning and extensive coordination is crucial and should be carried
out by the site management team in collaboration with national authorities and other key stakeholders,
including the legal owners of the land. Together they should ensure that site and host populations
participate fully in the process. Buildings which have been degraded due to their temporary use as
collective centres can have a negative impact on the local community. The eventual decommissioning, or
rehabilitation and handover, of such assets during site closure should be defined and agreed with involved
stakeholders from the start, or as close as possible to it. The planning of site set‐up/improvement and
closure are interrelated from the beginning.
SMAs and CCCM cluster coordinators are in a unique position to monitor if secondary displacement is
taking place. This may happen when conditions in the areas of return or resettlement are not conducive
for a safe and dignified return. Reasons could relate to security, housing and livelihood opportunities, basic
services and social retaliation. Where this occurs and an SMA has successfully monitored the situation,
advocacy on the challenges faced by the displaced people should be done with local or appropriate
authorities.
Standard 5.1: Transition to a new SMA and site management team
Site populations continue to receive appropriate and timely support and service
provision during site management transition periods.
Key actions

With the new SMA, develop a transition or handover plan.
o
At a minimum, this plan should ensure service continue to be provided in
the site. Include existing service providers in this process.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
43
o
Ensure infrastructure and equipment handover includes details of key
resources, tasks and technical requirements.
o
Include rehabilitation and decommissioning needs.

Include existing site representation structures in the handover process.

Work with the incoming SMA to establish a caseload action plan to address the
needs of vulnerable people, which does not place them at increased risk due
to site handover and ensures their uninterrupted access to services.
o

Key indicators
Make sure that vulnerable people and their caregivers are appropriately
informed about a new SMA and their ongoing access to services.
Work with the new SMA to ensure its capacity and expertise is adequate.
o
Capacity building should include all areas but in particular issues of land
tenure, infrastructure maintenance and protection and humanitarian
principles.
o
Work with the new SMA, for example, through partner or shared roles,
mentoring or shadowing.

Share a summary of the transition or handover plan with the host community
and representatives of the local authorities.

% of site population who are satisfied with services provided during transition
periods

Community and partner consultations are used to develop and share transition
or handover plans.
Guidance notes
Incoming SMAs may be humanitarian organisations, government authorities (local or national) or
community groups. It is critical to build capacity and provide time for technical support and overlap
between senior staff and new agency staff coming in to complete activities and consultations. In areas
where it is possible, the new SMA should be encouraged to retain original staff, who are rehired to
provide both experience and institutional memory to ensure continuity for the population. For planned
handovers, capacity and expertise of the incoming SMA can be assured, and capacity plans and activities
put in place if needed. For more rapid handovers, the CCCM cluster coordinator and the cluster lead
agency may have a role in making sure capacity plans are rolled out in incoming SMAs.
 See also Standard 1.3: SMA and site management team capacity.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
44
Standard 5.2: Planned closure
Site closure takes place in a planned and consultative manner, and its impact on any
residual site populations is mitigated.
Key actions

Revisit site closure plans and adapt to the current context.
o
Key indicators
Use results from consultative meetings, focus group discussions or
intentions surveys to inform any action.

If appropriate and feasible, set up go‐and‐see visits to return, integration or
resettlement locations.

Compile a list of site residents who are ready to relocate, taking note especially
of large families, people with specific needs and female‐headed households.
Advocate for appropriate transport.

Involve site governance structures and leadership in the planning and
implementation of closure.

Seek solutions for vulnerable people to be absorbed into any social safety net
should site services suddenly be reduced or withdrawn.

Monitor site closure against the plan.

Ensure feedback and complaints mechanisms remain available to the affected
population.

Make sure measures are in place for the residual population, who may need to
access special services while residing or remaining on‐site, including receiving
access to appropriate levels of assistance.

Use or adapt existing participatory approaches and tools to find out and
document community perceptions on site closure and relocation.

% of service‐providing organisations that adopt and provide input to closure
plans (target 100%)

Feedback and complaints mechanisms are maintained throughout the closure
process.

% of protection and security issues related to closure that are reported and
referred
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
45
Guidance notes
As with site set‐up, each site closure will be highly contextual, and engaging the community is a key
element in a smooth closure process.
While closing formal camps is a government responsibility, national exit strategies are not the
responsibility of a single agency or authority and need multiple stakeholders across different levels of
government, community or agency to be engaged.
The closure of sites hosting IDPs must align with any government plans for IDP movement, the restitution
of the land and any other administrative issues.
The closure of sites hosting refugees will involve national governments signing legal memorandums of
understanding with countries of return or resettlement. These are organised by UNHCR, the government
of refuge and intended country of return or resettlement.
 See also Standards 2.2: Community participation, 2.3: Information sharing with communities and 2.4:
Feedback and complaints.
 Read more about site closure as well as the Closure checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit
Chapter 7.
 Read more about site closure in the CCCM Cluster’s Camp Closure Guidelines.
Standard 5.3: Unplanned closure (partial or whole)
Unplanned (forced returns) and spontaneous closure is anticipated and its impact on
site populations managed and mitigated.
Key actions



Ensure site residents have access to basic services.
o
Coordinate with service providers to relocate or reprovision services.
o
Advocate on behalf of site populations to maintain services.
Work with local and national authorities and other stakeholders to find
alternative accommodation solutions for site residents affected by the closure.
o
Support movement of belongings and infrastructure.
o
Compile a list of site residents who need to relocate, taking note especially
of large families and female‐headed households. Advocate for appropriate
transport.
o
Make sure accommodation for people with specific needs is adapted to
meet those needs.
Use or adapt existing information‐sharing mechanisms to inform the site
population and service providers about what is happening and why.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
46
Key indicators

Ensure feedback and complaints mechanisms remain available to the affected
population.

Use or adapt existing participatory approaches and tools to find out and
document community perceptions on site closure and relocation.

% of the site population who are able to access basic services during site closure
or relocation

Feedback and complaints mechanisms are maintained throughout the closure
process.

% of protection and security issues related to closure that are reported and
referred
Guidance notes
Situations resulting from conflict and disasters caused by natural hazards are often unpredictable.
People remain in sites for far longer than initially planned. Future eventualities and different scenarios
need to be anticipated from the very beginning of an operation. Effective management of the site,
infrastructure and assets must be based on assessments including the timing of exit. Careful planning
should aim to safeguard the site population.
While forced site closure and forced return of displaced people to their area of origin is not acceptable,
the SMA should be ready to respond to it. Site closure must be linked to a durable solution framework
for all displaced people.
 See also Standards 2.1: Governance structures, 2.2: Community participation, 2.3: Information sharing
with communities and 2.4: Feedback and complaints.
 Read more about site closure as well as the Closure checklist in the Camp Management Toolkit
Chapter 7.
 Read more about site closure in the CCCM Cluster’s Camp Closure Guidelines.
Standard 5.4: Rehabilitation and decommissioning
Rehabilitation of the site meets the needs of residual populations and host
communities while taking into account local regulations and environmental needs.
Key actions

Consult with all service providers, community representatives and other
stakeholders to develop a rehabilitation and decommissioning plan that details
equipment, infrastructure and guidance on land and infrastructure
rehabilitation.
o
Consult during site set‐up, as infrastructure and land management options
evolve, and during site closure periods.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
47
Key indicators
o
Ensure that burial grounds used by the site population are clearly marked
and included in rehabilitation and decommissioning plans.
o
Ask for specific decommissioning protocols for any hazardous waste sites,
such as health facilities, chemical storage sites and slaughter yards.
o
Request from service providers decommissioning plans for all toilets and
sludge management facilities.

Assess, mitigate and monitor any negative environmental impacts.

Share the rehabilitation and decommissioning plan with the host and residual
community and any local government.

Review initial and updated site plans and any initial host community
agreements and revisit with the community through participatory
mechanisms.

Revisit the agreement with host communities and local authorities detailing
the conditions needed to return the land and infrastructure.

Environmental concerns are assessed, mitigated and monitored.
Guidance notes
Site closure will produce large amounts of waste of different kinds such as shelter materials, left‐behind
belongings and damaged items of various kinds. Waste such as chemicals, batteries, expired items and
health waste will need to be properly disposed of. Preparing for site closure includes cleaning, whether
removal or on‐site burial or incineration. Risk of contaminating soil and water sources should be taken
seriously.
Environmental rehabilitation does not necessarily mean returning the site to its former status; even if
feasible, it will be costly and time‐consuming. It may be more appropriate to find out what the host
community would like to see happen to the site once it has been closed.
 Read more about environmental considerations in the Camp Management Toolkit Chapter 6. See also
the Closure checklist in Chapter 7.
 Site lifecycle planning should be done alongside Standards 3.2 An appropriate environment, 4.1 Site
coordination and 5.2 Planned closure.
 See also the technical chapters of the Sphere Handbook for more detail on decommissioning and
rehabilitation of water, sanitation and hygiene, shelter and settlements and health infrastructure.
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
48
References and further reading

The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Minimum Standards for Child Protection
in Humanitarian Action: 2019 Edition, 2020. https://alliancecpha.org/en/CPMS_home

ALNAP. Participation Handbook for Humanitarian Field Workers, 2009. www.alnap.org/help‐
library/participation‐handbook‐for‐humanitarian‐field‐workers

British Red Cross. Community Engagement Hub. https://communityengagementhub.org

The Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP), Minimum Requirements for Market Analysis in
Emergencies, 2013. www.calpnetwork.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/07/minimum‐
requirements‐for‐market‐analysis‐in‐emergencies.pdf

Global Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) Cluster. Camp Closure Guidelines,
2014. https://cccmcluster.org/resources/camp‐closure‐guidelines

Global CCCM Cluster. CCCM Case Studies Volume 1, 2014.
https://cccmcluster.org/resources/cccm‐case‐studies‐vol‐1

Global CCCM Cluster. Urban Displacement & Outside of Camp: Desk Review, 2014.
https://cccmcluster.org/resources/urban‐displacement‐out‐camps‐review‐udoc

Global CCCM Cluster. CCCM Case Studies Volume 2, 2016.
https://cccmcluster.org/resources/cccm‐case‐studies‐vol‐2

Global CCCM Cluster. CCCM Case Studies 2016‐2019 Chapter 3, 2019.
https://cccmcluster.org/resources/cccm‐case‐studies‐2016‐2019‐chapter‐3

Global CCCM Cluster. Management and Coordination of Collective Settings Through Mobile / Area
Based Approach: Working Paper, 2019. https://cccmcluster.org/resources/management‐and‐
coordination‐collective‐settings‐through‐mobile‐approach‐working‐paper

Global Protection Cluster Working Group. Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced
Persons, 2010.
www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/news_and_publications/IDP_Handbook_EN.pdf

Humanitarian Standards Partnership. Humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and
people with disabilities. Key inclusion standards 4, 5 and 6, 2018.
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Humanitarian_inclusion_standards_for_
older_people_and_people_with_disabi....pdf

OCHA. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 2004.
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/guiding‐principles‐internal‐displacement‐2004

IASC. IASC Six Core Principles, https://psea.interagencystandingcommittee.org/update/iasc‐six‐
core‐principles

IASC. Strategy: Protection from and response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual
Harassment, 2018. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/iasc‐champion‐protection‐sexual‐
exploitation‐and‐abuse‐and‐sexual‐harassment/strategy‐protection
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
49

IASC and Global Protection Cluster. Guidelines for Integrating Gender‐Based Violence
Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing risk, promoting resilience and aiding recovery,
2015. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/working‐group/iasc‐guidelines‐integrating‐
gender‐based‐violence‐interventions‐humanitarian‐action

ICRC, Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Standards, 2020. www.icrc.org/en/data‐
protection‐humanitarian‐action‐handbook

IOM, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and UN Refugee Agency UNHCR). Camp Management
Toolkit. https://cccmcluster.org/resources/camp‐management‐toolkit

NRC. Sustainable Settlements: Maximising the social, environmental and economic gains in
humanitarian displacement settings, 2017. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/sustainable‐
settlements‐maximising‐social‐environmental‐and‐economic‐gains‐humanitarian

NRC. Community Coordination Toolbox, 2020. https://cct.nrc.no

NRC. Improving Participation and Protection of Displaced Women and Girls Through Camp
Management Approaches, 2020. www.nrc.no/resources/reports/improving‐participation‐and‐
protection‐of‐displaced‐women‐and‐girls‐through‐camp‐management‐approaches

Overseas Development Institute. Protracted Displacement: Uncertain Paths to Self‐reliance in
Exile, 2015. www.odi.org/publications/9906‐protracted‐displacement‐uncertain‐paths‐self‐
reliance‐exile

Oxfam GB. Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: The Good Enough Guide,
2007. https://policy‐practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/impact‐measurement‐and‐
accountability‐in‐emergencies‐the‐good‐enough‐guide‐115510

The SEEP Network. Minimum Economic Recovery Standards (3rd edition), 2017.
https://seepnetwork.org/Blog‐Post/Minimum‐Economic‐Recovery‐Standards‐Third‐Edition‐exist‐
190

Sphere Association. The Sphere Handbook (4th edition), 2018. https://spherestandards.org/wp‐
content/uploads/Sphere‐Handbook‐2018‐EN.pdf

UNHCR. Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, 2010.
www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/idps/4c2355229/handbook‐protection‐internally‐displaced‐
persons.html

UNHCR, IOM. Collective Centre Guidelines, 2010. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/collective‐
centre‐guidelines

UN. Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006.
www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention‐on‐the‐rights‐of‐persons‐with‐
disabilities.html

UN Security Council. Conflict Related Sexual Violence: Report of the UN Secretary‐General.
S/2018/250, 2018. www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp‐content/uploads/2019/04/report/s‐
2019‐280/Annual‐report‐2018.pdf
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
50

Women in Displacement. https://womenindisplacement.org
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
51
Annex 1 – Disability inclusion monitoring checklist
How can the inclusiveness of a site be monitored? This checklist is not exhaustive nor meant to replace
participatory approaches but can be used as a complementary tool by site managers willing to assess the
overall inclusiveness of a site, or as a tool to support the development of an inclusive strategy for persons
with disabilities.
The questions have been developed based on the Minimum Standards for Camp Management and follow
the standards’ structure.1 The questions should be contextualised and can be adjusted to fit different
contexts or programmatic purposes.
Sex and age disaggregation should be included whenever relevant, and disability disaggregation is
encouraged within available assessment, analysis and response capacities. The questions and
considerations listed may also be extended to the families and caregivers of persons with disabilities.
Site management capacities and identification
Site lifecycle planning




Were persons with disabilities engaged in the development of the action plan?
Does the site management action plan consider the requirements of persons with disabilities?
Does it include targeted actions for persons with specific needs?
Have inclusive financial and material resources been considered in the action plan? For example,
a budget line for accessibility and reasonable accommodation, starting from the design phase; and
procurement of supplies that follow the universal design principles.
Have the requirements of persons with disabilities been included in contingency and evacuation
plans?
Site management team capacity




Is someone in the site management team appointed as disability inclusion focal point?
Are there both men and women with disabilities working for the site management agency as staff,
volunteers, community mobilisers and so on?
Has the site management team received training on disability inclusion and is the team able to
apply learning to deliver inclusive assistance?
Are the organisation’s premises accessible to persons with a range of disabilities?
Identification and data protection



Have persons with disabilities been identified during registration or through other data collection
mechanisms?
Is data disaggregated by sex, age and disability available to the site management agency?
Is data related to persons with disabilities adequately protected throughout the information
management cycle?
1
For inclusion‐specific standards, see Age and Disability Consortium. Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older
People and People with Disabilities, 2018. www.helpage.org/download/5a7ad49b81cf8
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
52

Is informed consent collected from persons with disabilities whenever relevant (or assent where
consent cannot be provided, such as for children or persons with intellectual impairments)?
Community participation and representation
Governance structures





Are there active organisations of persons with disabilities, self‐support groups or community
disability committees in the site or surrounding communities? If so, are they representative of the
site population in its diversity (sex, age, ethnicity, disabilities)?
Are persons with disabilities and/or their representative organisations involved in site governance
structures or groups? Do they play a meaningful role? Are the persons/entities involved
representative of the population in terms of sex, age, ethnicity and disability? Do persons with
disabilities feel they are represented by and through the site governance structure?
Have barriers and enablers to participation of persons with disabilities been identified? Have
persons with disabilities been involved in their identification?
Has a vulnerability risk assessment been conducted, keeping in mind the “do no harm” principle,
on the participation of persons with disabilities and the potential impact on their life and the way
they are perceived?
Have persons with disabilities, their families and organisations of persons with disabilities been
trained and supported to ensure meaningful participation and increased resilience?
Community participation





Are persons with disabilities included in participation methodologies set up by the SMA?
Are persons with disabilities involved in each stage of the project cycle – assessment, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation?
Are there accessible channels for persons with disabilities to reach out to the site management
team and report on their views and concerns?
Do persons with disabilities report to be satisfied with the opportunities they have to influence site
decisions?
Do women with disabilities feel their views are considered in decision‐making processes?
Information sharing and communication



Have persons with a range of disabilities been consulted on their communication needs and
preferences?
Is key information, education and communication material provided in multiple formats and
mediums in the site (such as large print, easy read and jargon free, pictograms, sign language, oral,
radio, videos, text messages)?
Is information disseminated in multiple accessible locations (such as at information desks,
distribution sites, safe spaces and health facilities; during site committee meetings and focus
groups; via door‐to‐door visits and community mobilisers)?
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
53

Is monitoring organised to ensure that persons with a range of disabilities have access to key
information about the site’s life, overall services and assistance available, as well as on specific
services that concern them?
Feedback and complaints





Can feedback and complaints be collected through a variety of channels (such as verbal, written,
electronic, paper‐based, boxes, help desks, hotlines), in accessible ways and locations?
Are feedback and complaints mechanisms accessible to people who stay in their shelters?
When taking actions and reporting back, is accessibility also considered?
Is there a way to monitor the use of feedback and complaints mechanisms by persons with
disabilities (for example, is data disaggregated by sex, age and disability using the Washington
Group Short Set of Questions)?
Are prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse mechanisms accessible to persons with
disabilities?
Site environment
A safe and secure environment









Are observational and safety audits regularly conducted in the site, evaluating both physical
infrastructures and community behaviour, keeping in mind the risks men, women, boys and girls
with disabilities may face?
Are persons with disabilities represented in safety committees?
Are information channels to communicate risks to the site population accessible to persons with
disabilities (in a variety of formats, in multiple locations)?
During site set‐up and site improvement, have measures been taken to adopt universal design
principles and ensure access to the site and infrastructures for the greatest number of people? Do
these consider, for example, pathways, access to shelters, WASH, distribution sites, communal
areas, schools and health care facilities? Do they consider the range of existing disabilities (such as
physical, psychosocial and intellectual, and sensory impairments)?
Are persons with disabilities, their families and caregivers consulted throughout the site lifecycle
on their needs, the barriers they face and expectations for the site plans? For example, in terms of
the overall set‐up, infrastructures, shelters, access to WASH facilities, distribution sites, health care
facilities, schools and communal areas.
Are national laws, norms and standards on accessibility and inclusion considered and respected?
Is reasonable accommodation provided to persons with disabilities and their families, in terms of
access to facilities, services and assistance?
Is there a budget planned for reasonable accommodation and site improvement to act on the
barriers persons with disabilities may face?
Are accessibility audits conducted regularly to assess part or all of the site’s environment, including
meeting spaces?
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
54


Are acceptable distance and transport to essential services and facilities considered for persons
with disabilities?
Do persons with disabilities and their families have access to education and livelihoods
opportunities?
Site service coordination and monitoring
Site coordination







Are there disability‐focused organisations working in the site or communities? Are there other
professionals to support inclusion efforts at site level, for example, mental health and psychosocial
support, protection, child protection, GBV staff? Have they been mapped and involved?
Is inclusion a regular item on the agenda of site coordination meetings?
When a disability working group (or age and disability group) is activated in‐country, does the site
management team attend the working group’s meetings?
Are persons with disabilities and disability committees involved in collective decisions, including
through site‐level stakeholders’ meetings? Are coordination meetings accessible to persons with
disabilities?
Are persons with disabilities involved when deciding on sectoral minimum quality standards?
Are persons with disabilities included in the implementation and monitoring of protection and
assistance activities and outcomes throughout the site lifecycle?
Is advocacy also conducted for and with persons with disabilities in the search for durable
solutions?
Site service assessment, monitoring and reporting



Are site profiles and assessment tools inclusive (for example, identifying persons with disabilities,
with data disaggregated by sex, age and disability; identifying risks, barriers and requirements)?
Are persons with disabilities involved and consulted in services monitoring and multi‐sectoral
assessments?
Do persons with disabilities have meaningful access to information to guide their decisions to
return, integrate or resettle? Is service continuity accessible throughout the process? Are barriers
for making decisions identified?
Referral pathways





Are persons with disabilities aware of critical referral pathways for health services, GBV, child
protection and other protection and specialised services? Has information been communicated in
multiple formats and through multiple accessible channels?
Are site management staff aware of critical referral pathways and do they know how to
appropriately and ethically advise people, including persons with disabilities and their families, on
how to access them?
Are follow‐up procedures on referrals in place?
Are case management protocols shared with partners as needed?
Is advocacy conducted for quality specialised services for persons with disabilities?
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
55

Do disability committees play a role in referrals?
Exit and transition
Transition to a new site management agency




Has service continuity for persons with disabilities been included in the transition or handover
plan?
Have persons with disabilities and their caregivers been included in the process and informed
meaningfully of the transition plans?
Have the needs and requirements of persons with disabilities and their families been identified so
that they are not placed at increased risk due to site handover? Has their access to services been
secured?
Has the new SMA been trained on disability inclusion practices? Are its capacities and expertise
adequate?
Closure







Have persons with disabilities been consulted through meetings, focus groups or other means on
site closure plans?
Have appropriate go‐and‐see visits been set up for persons with disabilities?
Has appropriate transport and support been arranged, including to prevent the risk of separation
from families and caregivers?
Have contingency plans considered persons with disabilities in terms of social safety nets should
services suddenly be reduced or withdrawn?
Are feedback and complaints mechanisms still available and accessible to persons with disabilities?
Are supportive measures still in place for persons with disabilities who are part of the residual
population, for example access to special services while remaining on‐site, to assistance and to
self‐help groups?
When site closures are unplanned, have persons with disabilities been informed about what is
happening and why, have their minimum requirements been considered (for example, access to
basic services, transport and accommodation)?
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
56
Term
Minimum Standards in Camp
Management
Camp Management Toolkit
abbreviations
61
accountability
4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22
10, 14, 15, 20–22, 24–27, 30,
32, 34, 39, 46, 47, 60–63, 65,
66, 73, 75, 77, 96, 109, 118,
121, 127, 132, 138, 141, 186,
187, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196,
203, 213, 226
area‐based approach
3, 8–10, 26, 35, 37
18
assessment
25, 26, 35, 39–41, 47, 54
18, 38, 42, 47, 52, 54, 56, 63,
64, 66, 73, 236, 242, 247

camp closure
109, 114, 115

camp set‐up
101, 102, 104, 107

education
121, 258, 259, 263, 268, 270

environment
84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92

food security
186, 189, 193, 196, 197

GBV
146–148, 150, 153

group level
140

health
237, 238, 239, 251, 254, 255

livelihoods
275–277, 279–281

needs
22, 23, 68, 74–76, 79

participation
27, 49, 50, 51, 57

programme cycle
38

protection

PWSN
156, 157, 161–164, 166

registration
131–133, 139

risk

role of CMA

safety and security

shelter multi hazard

16
42, 123, 125, 126,
17, 52
23, 24
31
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
57, 171–173, 176, 180, 183
223, 229, 230
57

site plan
104

transparency
57

WASH
202–204, 215
Camp Management Toolkit
2
checklist

community
participation
42, 57

coordination
68

coordinating and
monitoring assistance
and service
42

disseminating
information
43

ensuring the
maintenance of camp
infrastructure
42

environment
91

inclusivity

information
management
80

managing information
43

PSEA
33

recruiting, training and
supervising staff
42

safety and security
183

setting up governance
and community
participation
mechanisms
42

site closure
115

site set‐up
115
collective centres
52
7–9, 11, 17, 24, 26, 34, 36, 43
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
9, 16–18, 31, 36, 61, 65, 84,
85, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 108,
58
119, 120, 147–149, 221–227,
230, 231, 258, 265, 270
community participation
7, 9, 14, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 33, 40,
43
10, 11, 22, 36, 42, 45–58, 64,
131, 149, 172, 176, 211, 213,
224, 258, 260, 270
contingency plans
16, 17, 31, 55
20, 22, 31, 34, 41, 43, 134,
171, 172, 175–178, 180, 183,
192, 222, 232, 248, 255, 260,
261, 270
coordination
2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 19, 25, 31, 37–40,
43, 54
9, 15, 16, 20–22, 26, 27, 38,
41–43, 97, 241

camp committees
50, 51, 55, 56

camp management
agency
14, 15, 30, 31, 33, 60–68, 72–
77, 80, 85,

camp closure
107, 109, 111, 115

cluster coordination
23, 24

diarrhoeal disease
249

education
258, 260–262, 267, 270

entitlement cards
132

food security
189

food/non‐food items
187, 188, 196

health
236–239, 246, 248, 250, 252,
254, 255

IDP camp
administration
23

inter‐camp
24

LGBTi
164

livelihoods
274, 275, 279, 280

meetings
33, 38, 42

national

OCHA
78, 172

protection
121–123, 126, 127, 156–159,
164, 165
37, 40
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
59

PSEA

rainwater
88

refugee model
22

registration
130, 132, 133, 138

safety
170–172, 174, 180

sectoral

security providers
34

shelter
220–222, 224, 227, 229, 232

site

site planning and GBV
146, 148, 149, 151, 152

training
32, 52,

UN‐CIMIC
35

WASH
87, 88, 202–204, 207, 214, 215
19
38
7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 25, 31, 37–40, 43
Core Humanitarian
Standard (CHS)
10, 19

appropriateness and
relevance
30, 37

communication,
participation and
feedback
22

complaints mechanisms
22, 37

coordination and
complementarity
37

effectiveness and
timeliness
14

local capacities and
negative effects
22

staff support and
treatment
22
durable solutions
7, 11, 12, 38, 40, 47, 55
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
14, 19–23, 31, 43, 47, 51, 64,
77, 96, 107, 108, 110, 111,
115, 126, 131, 224, 237
60
emergency evacuation
centres
7–9, 15, 24, 36
9, 17, 18, 20, 64, 147, 222
feedback and complaints
28–30, 45, 47, 54, 56
14, 26, 27, 46, 47

29
PSEA
governance structures
3, 7, 22–25, 29, 31, 36, 38, 39, 42,
45, 53
37, 47, 49, 64, 76
government
2, 3, 7, 14, 16, 19, 21, 43, 46
9, 17, 22, 24, 26, 37–39, 61,
97, 105, 107, 109, 111, 118,
120, 122, 131, 132, 137, 171,
180, 238, 244, 263, 265, 268,
269, 277

local
14, 18, 23, 26, 44, 48
36, 51, 62, 97, 109, 246

national
3, 7, 14, 31, 44, 46
Handbook for the
Protection of Internally
Displaced Persons
2, 11
host community
4, 5, 8, 9, 14–17, 23, 26–29, 31,
33–35, 37–39, 44, 47, 48
10, 14, 18, 23–25, 31, 32, 34,
38, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55–58, 60–
62, 65, 72, 75, 76, 84–87, 89–
92, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 105–
107, 111, 114–115, 119, 126,
137, 141, 146, 151, 158, 160,
163, 164, 170, 172–174, 177,
181, 183, 188, 197, 203, 204,
206, 211, 215, 220, 221, 223,
224, 226, 232, 246, 253, 254,
260, 262–267, 274–281
Humanitarian Charter
6, 10
164, 203
humanitarian principles
10, 15, 18, 19, 44
14–15, 24, 32, 35, 50, 63, 181
Humanitarian Standards
Partnership
2, 5
informal sites, see self‐
settled camps
local authorities
3, 7, 9, 15–17, 19, 31, 34, 35, 38,
39, 43, 44, 48, 53
minimum standards
2–6, 7, 13, 19
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
15, 84, 101, 121, 141, 237
61

child protection
121

education
258–260, 266, 269, 270

information sharing
and data protection

LGBTI

sectoral

shelter
27
164
38–40
221, 224
mobile teams, see also
area‐based approach
3, 9, 15, 35, 36, 41
17, 30, 36, 77, 85, 136, 175,
223
monitoring
4, 25, 37–41, 52–55
22, 25, 32–34, 39, 42, 46–50,
52, 54, 56, 57, 61–64, 66, 72,
107, 111, 115, 118, 121–123,
130–132, 134, 139–141, 144,
145, 147, 148, 151, 153, 159,
178, 180, 183, 186–189, 194,
197, 202–204, 209, 213–215,
220, 221, 227, 229, 232, 237,
247, 258–261, 263, 264, 269,
270, 278, 279, 281

assistance and service
provision
3, 7, 37
24, 30, 118, 156, 157, 162,

community
participation
33
27, 48, 134

complaints and
feedback
29

data
20
22, 74, 77, 80, 161, 166, 221,

environmental impacts
48
84–87, 90, 91, 277

governance
23, 25
26, 30,

population density
32
140

safety and security
32
125–127

secondary
displacements
43

site action plan
17

site closure
45
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
62
option of last resort
7, 11, 12
9, 14, 41, 77, 96, 119
people with specific needs
16, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 45, 46
23, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43,
46, 47, 49, 57, 61, 64, 68, 75,
80, 104, 107, 111, 112, 115,
123, 130, 134, 136, 138, 155–
167, 172, 173, 186, 188, 191,
193, 195–198, 205, 214, 215,
224, 226, 232, 236, 239, 243,
244, 253–255, 270, 275–277,
280, 281
planned camps
7, 8
planning, site planning
11, 33, 35, 36, 52
protection principles
10, 14, 19
PSEA (preventing sexual
exploitation and abuse)
15, 18, 19, 29
33, 42, 152, 193
reception and transit
centres
7–9, 15, 24, 28, 34
9, 17, 18, 139, 240
relocation
31, 32, 45, 47
23, 91, 97, 98, 102, 109, 119,
159, 177, 178, 180, 230, 275
safety audits
31, 32, 54
144, 148
safety plan
31
self‐settled camps
7–9, 35
18, 96–98, 115, 221, 243
service providers
14, 16–18, 23, 25–29, 31, 32, 34–
43, 46–48
14, 22, 24–27, 31, 33, 34, 37,
38, 42, 43, 47,49, 50–53, 55–
58, 60–62, 64–66, 72, 74, 77–
80, 85, 90, 109, 111, 114, 115,
119, 122, 127, 132, 133, 147,
149, 152, 157, 159, 180, 186,
187–189, 192, 194, 195, 197,
198, 204, 207, 208, 221, 249,
277
88, 96–98, 103–106, 115, 149,
196, 203, 210, 215, 221, 223,
230, 231

education
258–261, 263, 264, 267, 269,
270

financial
186, 187, 189
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
63

health
163, 209, 236–238, 244, 248,
253, 255, 256, 262

WASH
87, 202–211, 214, 215
site closure
11, 17, 19, 43, 45–48, 56
10, 14, 19–22, 27, 31, 41, 43,
46, 84, 96, 97, 107, 111, 113–
115, 119, 156, 157, 203, 222,
224, 237, 260

education
263

health
254
Site Development
Committee
33, 35
site management action
plan
16, 17
site management team
14–19, 21, 22, 33, 36, 37, 39, 43,
44, 52
The Sphere Handbook
2, 5, 6, 10, 19, 30, 36
UNHCR Handbook for
Emergencies
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
101, 103, 107, 115
195
9, 85, 203, 224
64
Acronyms and abbreviations
CHS
Core Humanitarian Standards
GBV
Gender‐based violence
IASC
Inter‐Agency Standing Committee
IOM
International Organization for Migration
NGO
Non‐government organisation
POLR
Provider of last resort (cluster)
PSEA
Preventing sexual exploitation and abuse
SEA
Sexual exploitation and abuse
SMA
Site management agency
UNHCR
UN Refugee Agency
WASH
Water, sanitation and hygiene (sector)
Minimum Standards for Camp Management – Field Testing Edition
65